Jackson verdict: what does it mean?

I have so far avoided commenting on the Michael Jackson verdict. Since I was neither in his bedroom nor in the courtroom, I'm not sure that I have anything salient to say about it.
But I think the reactions of other people to the verdict are worth mentioning. According to the latest Gallup poll: Overall 48% (of the 635 people polled) disagreed with the verdict, about 34% agreed and 18% weren't sure.
The more interesting results showed that whites split 54% to 28% against the verdict, while people of color agreed with the jury by a similar 56% to 26%.
What's even more interesting is how the column in the New York Daily News directly adjacent to the poll results in which right-wing knee jerk Neil Steinberg so clearly demonstrates the white reaction.
After criticizing the medias concern (almost exclusively) with the question of whether or not Jackson can regain his superstar status, Steinberg says:

A far more interesting question is this: How worrisome is Jackson's escape from punishment for society? Given that Elvis' open sexiness once seemed degenerate and now is the norm, is it possible that Jackson's skeezy strangeness will also become more common?
I think it will. Our standards have slipped, so that now criminality is our benchmark for social acceptance. So long as you don't actually commit crimes, then, hey, it's an open party?

It seems to me that whatever happened in the bedroom, according to all reports about what happened in the courtroom, the Rev. Al Sharpton hit much closer to the truth:

I think that this is a vindication for people that believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. I think that there are no winners here. I don't think that there's reason for Michael or those opposed to Michael to gloat. There's a lot of pain, a lot of hurt here -- children have been dragged into court, Michael's reputation has been damaged severely, but I think the criminal justice system worked this time.

The simple fact is that this jury believed that the prosecution has to make the case against the defendant and that in this case it simply didn't. Nonsense like Steinberg's only muddies the waters.