In the end, the prosecution’s gamble that other accusers would come forward proved the death knell. "In a case like this, you are looking for a smoking gun -- something you can grab on to. We had trouble finding that," said Hultman. Other jury members stressed that they treated Jackson like any other citizen and refused to be swayed by his celebrity. Unlike with the O.J. trial, this was not about making up for past abuses. The defense did not try to turn Jackson into a touchstone for everyday injustices. This was not about race. (Of course, one wonders precisely which race card—black or white--the defense would have used had they chosen  to go that route.) This was not about the shortcomings of the police department. It was simply about the merits of the case. Having closely scrutinized the evidence, the jurors could not convict Jackson for this particular crime. Or, as one juror recalled, "We actually challenged one another in the deliberation room. We challenged the issues, and we came to the decision that pointed to reasonable doubt."

This is justice. Child molestation is a horrible fact of our society. The heinous nature of the crime plays to our instincts for vengeance. It is all too human to want to use the law to tear down anyone accused of such an act—to give order to the tragedy by finding a perpetrator. But because the law dictates the most severe punishments that our society can exact, it must be tempered by order and consistency. When the law becomes an instrument of our vengeful whims, it fails to provide the public with fair warning of what will constitute a crime, and unwisely broadens government discretion in determining when an individual has violated the law. 

In effect, what the jurors in the Jackson trial were saying was that we must only punish the guilty, and we must never punish based upon the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. Regardless of what other justifications might exist for sending Jackson to jail-such as the suspicion that he may have molested other children—finding him guilty here on the basis of suspicion and a thirst for vengeance would have been at odds with a fair and consistent rule of law.