The "OJ" verdict

[Ree]

I was watching SNL last night, and they had their "news" portion on.
The anchor said, "OJ Simpson received a verdict of guilty for armed robbery and kidnapping...but really for murder..."which caused a large uproar of laughter.

How many think the verdict was really because of the past, and how many think it was actually a fair verdict, based on evidence?

Was he charged with greater crimes, simply because people feel he dodged the murder charges 13 years ago?

I am torn.

Barging into a hotel room with a gun and ordering people to stay where they are just to get some of his own property back isn't exactly deserving of a slap on the wrist, but, had it been just Joe Blow off the street, do you think the courts would have sought a lesser charge with no mention of a kidnapping charge?
I do.

[Boozy]

There's an interesting theory that the rich and famous actually receive special treatment in criminal courts - and not in the good way. It's a bit hard for people to swallow, but consider:

Paris Hilton. Would a different non-violent offender have been jailed for the same crime, given the extreme overcrowding and budgeting issues facing the prison system?

Conrad Black (Canadian publishing magnate). After all the hoopla, the only thing he was convicted of was obstruction of justice. And yet, his sentence (some say) was over the top.

In OJ's case, I don't think anyone in the country would be able to separate their feelings about him from their actions in this case. SNL probably has a point.

But I'm not going to lose much sleep over it.

[Ree]

Ah, but it shows the flaws in the justice system, doesn't it?

The law is supposed to be blind and applied evenly, hence the image of the woman blindfolded and holding scales to represent justice.

In the same way that, justice is applied more harshly based on fame or, depending on the crime, a higher financial status, it's not that much of a stretch to say that it's also more harshly applied based on ethnicity or a lower financial status.

[anriana]

There's an interesting theory that the rich and famous actually receive special treatment in criminal courts - and not in the good way. It's a bit hard for people to swallow, but consider:

I've always heard it argued the opposite, especially in regards to drugs.

[AdminAssistant]

It all depends on the jury. Many people thought the only reason Martha Stewart was sent to prison was because her jury was largely lower-middle class folks who couldn't sympathize with the ultra-rich Stewart.

There was no way OJ could get an impartial jury. And since Mr. Cochran has gone to the big courtroom in the sky, he didn't have much of a chance. Yeah, I gotta say, I have no sympathy - ESPECIALLY after he published that book and tried to make money out of the deal.

[Boozy]

I've always heard it argued the opposite, especially in regards to drugs.

I'd tend to think that the poor do actually have it worse when it comes to sentencing for drug offenses.

Perhaps it just goes to show how difficult it is for anyone to get "blind" justice.

[Sylvia727]

Barging into a hotel room with a gun and ordering people to stay where they are just to get some of his own property back isn't exactly deserving of a slap on the wrist, but, had it been just Joe Blow off the street, do you think the courts would have sought a lesser charge with no mention of a kidnapping charge?
I do.

I don't they would have, but I think they should have. A man points a gun at me, I want him punished to the fullest extent of the law. I don't think OJ is necessarily getting off too harsh, but I think many others are getting off too easy. Justice should be blind, but the reality of our system is that the courts triage their cases. Some get more attention than others; think plea deals, where a criminal can get his potential sentence reduced to a half or a third if he saves the courts the expenses of a full trial. Is that justice?

As far as if he was actually convicted of murder? I'm sure it was an influence on the jury, but it wouldn't be impossible to find twelve people who don't particularly care about that case. I, for example, was too young to care at the time, and am now old enough to serve on a jury.

[MystyGlyttyr]

Right or wrong, I know it definitely skewed my opinions on it. I was all but hoping they could find a way to fry him for it. I've carried a pretty deep resentment for OJ ever since the first trial. Not so much because he more or less got away with murder, or even because the entire thing came within a hair of setting back race relations 40 years, but just because of his whole untouchable smug attitude and hypocrisy about the entire thing.

The image I always have is of him standing there, with those bloody gloves pretend-too-small for his hands, the gloves covered in his DEAD EX-WIFE'S BLOOD, and grinning about it. I was only 11 at the time and I think I could have cheerfully strangled him at that moment.

[anriana]

I'd tend to think that the poor do actually have it worse when it comes to sentencing for drug offenses.

Perhaps it just goes to show how difficult it is for anyone to get "blind" justice.

Right, what I was saying is that the rich and famous get drastically reduced sentences compared to "normal" people.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I think he got what he deserved. He was known to be an arrogant man and throughout his life he acted like he was untouchable and above the law. People like that will continue to behave as such, until they finally screw up one time too many and get nailed for it. OJ thought that since he'd gotten away with murder once, he could do it again.

He found out wrong.

I'm sure there are folks who see it as 'racial revenge', but I see it as a case of justice grinding its wheels, albeit slowly. The man committed murder and armed robbery; that makes him a scumbag regardless of his race.

[protege]

Right, what I was saying is that the rich and famous get drastically reduced sentences compared to "normal" people.

That's it--there's one set of laws for the rich and famous, and one set for everyone else. You have enough money, you can usually either get away with things, or get the consequences seriously reduced.

With OJ's murder trial, many people think that he got away with it. Not because he "wasn't guilty," but because he was OJ Simpson. Also, there's the feeling that his defense got desperate mid-way through the trial. In other words, instead of presenting the evidence, they turned it into a racial thing. Do I think his current problems were a case of "racial revenge?" Of course not. He was simply proven to be a violent asshole, who thinks that the laws don't apply to him. Sadly, he was proven wrong.

[Flyndaran]

This time there was so much of a mountatin of evidence, that no lawyer alive could distract a stupid jury with rhymes.

[ebonyknight]

Unfortunately I don't think it will matter.

4 of the Jurors said during jury selection that they felt OJ got away with murder the first time. Can anyone say BIAS???

The trial was unfair from the beginning, in a strict legal sense, regardless of the evidence.

That will make his appeal quite interesting.

Guilty or not, fair or not, if he was wronged during the trial in anyway, Justice has not been done.

[Ree]

I do understand the outrage, and I get what people are saying, but there is a reason for the laws against trying a person twice for the same crime.

While he was being tried for a different offense, one cannot turn a blind eye that he really was being tried for the first crime, regardless.

If we apply that to just some dude off the street, tried and found innocent of a crime, much to the chagrin of the entire legal system, but then charged with another crime and having the book thrown at him because of a bias related to the first case, is that really justice?

If we do turn a blind eye in one case simply because we also feel the man got away with murder, it's slippery slope until it someday happens to us.

[the_std]

With someone whose first case was so celebritized as OJ's, how do you completely and utterly remove any bias whatsoever from the current trial? Bring in jurors, lawyers and a judge from a remote village in Malaysia? Yes, it sucks that what he did previously might be used to judge him now, but in reality, that is nearly impossible to avoid. Humans are flawed and biased, and the entire judicial system is based on them.