posted on October 4, 2008 06:09:54 PM new
I know the guilty OJ verdict has nothing to do with the murder of his wife and Ron, but you have to wonder if this verdict, which guarantees him 20 years behind bars exactly 13 years after his not-guilty verdict isn't justice deserved, justice delayed. The news has deemed it very unlikely to win on appeal. OJ is behind bars now.
posted on October 5, 2008 12:26:31 AM new
Whatever. I'm just happy that he's finally been caught AND found guilty. What a jerk. The Zen saying rings true, again: We create what happens to us.
_____________________
posted on October 5, 2008 05:23:24 AM new
Roadsmith, I don't believe in a great deal of reliance on that zen sayin that "we create what happens to us". But that's probably a topic for another discussion.
If I were a juror I hope that I would be able to base my decision on the robbery charge by considering the evidence in that case, without being influenced by the fact that another jury found him not guilty of murder because they had reasonable doubt.
posted on October 5, 2008 03:44:06 PM new
"because they had reasonable doubt."
How laughable. At the time I believe the statement was "couldn't bring myself to send another young black man to prison". Which in many states would be a mistrial and perhaps juror indictment.
Thank God he chose to be out of CA for this one. The only thing better place could have hoped for would have been TX, where we probably would not have to hear about him ever again.
posted on October 5, 2008 05:16:01 PM new Squirrel denies that the jurors made their decision based on reasonable doubt and he writes, "How laughable. At the time I believe the statement was "couldn't bring myself to send another young black man to prison". Which in many states would be a mistrial and perhaps juror indictment."
One thing the American public forgets is a trial isn't necessarily about truth. The verdict isn't "innocent"; the verdict is "not guilty." The prosecution's burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Several of the jurors explained afterwards that they suspected Mr. Simpson was guilty, but they weren't shown it beyond a reasonable doubt. That's an action and a comment of a juror that understands their responsibility and is doing their job. Tragically, the American public didn't understand that. How can you acquit if you think Mr. Simpson is guilty? And the answer is very simple: [If] the prosecution doesn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you must acquit. That's not jury nullification; that's how our system is supposed to function.
posted on October 5, 2008 05:31:24 PM new
I would hate to think even 12 people drawn at random could possibly be THAT IGNORANT. The only thing lacking was an autographed picture of him slitting her throat.
The "reasonable doubt" excuse is the leftist answer in place of black racism because, though abundant, it isn't in the pc handbook.
posted on October 5, 2008 06:59:39 PM new
If John Q Public tried to steal items that were originally stolen from him, I would hate to see him get life imprisonment for an impulsive act of passion. But this was not John Q Public and it was not an impulsive burglary attempt, it was a thought-out armed hotel room invasion and the evidence was clear that OJ was guilty of what he was accused of. Did OJ put himself in this position because he felt the need to be punished for murders he was found not guilty of? Perhaps, but I think the same impunity that caused him to gloat after his acquittal also caused him to think that threatening the lives of people he thought ripped him off was an appropriate response.
[ edited by pixiamom on Oct 5, 2008 08:20 PM ]
posted on October 6, 2008 10:38:32 AM new
The problem with the murder trial, IMHO, is that the defense was smarter about the statistics of DNA than the prosecutors. They managed to confuse the jury (which wasn't too difficult; they were a jury of "peers".
Barring a concerted and complicated frame-up on the part of the police, anyone with a high school understanding of statistics and DNA would have found him guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt. I personally do not believe that the police/prosecutors had sufficient desire to frame him, nor the requisite skill, organization, and unanimity of purpose to do it.
From a legal standpoint it would be wrong for a jury to convict in this case because of the previous case. As a practical matter, were I on the jury, I would have done so (if I made it past voir dire). It sickens me that OJ played golf for 13 years after murdering 2 people. It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
posted on October 6, 2008 11:18:21 AM new
Another issue with the OJ murder trial was how much information/evidence was let out to the general public that the jurors were never allowed to see.
I think it was a combination of very good defense lawyers and a very odd judge.
[ edited by cherishedclutter on Oct 6, 2008 11:18 AM ]
.