JPF Home Page Forums OJ Gets 33 Years - This is Just WRONG in so many ways

John,

They did NOT find him innocent. They simply could not prove guilt.

In this case, OJ got off very lightly. He was sentenced almost the lightest he could be sentenced. Had they been punishing him for the murders, he never would have seen the light of day again and he'd have gotten the max. They offered a very light slap on the wrist plea bargin, as they offer all criminals these days, and he turned them down. It's quite common practice to not give someone convicted after turning down a plea deal the lightest sentence available. Looking at all the facts of how this went down, you'd have to say he got off as light as anyone possibly could have considering the facts. That not only doesn't show any bias, it in fact once again shows ridiculous leniency. People are cheering because the justice system has nothing to do with truth. It simply is a process that uses arguments by imperfect people to try and establish justice. If they fail to meet justice by wrongly prosecuting someone, often the state has to pay reparations. If they wrongly let someone off who later is proven to be the killer (and who, if you remember, wrote a book about exactly how he murdered 2 people to try and get rich off the crime) the state has no recourse due to double jeopardy. But once the world knows the truth, they are not only right to state the truth, but they have a moral obligation not to pretend he's innocent when even the courts don't suggest they offer proof of innocence. Just that he's not guilty beyond the reasonable doubt of the jurors involved. A large amount of evidence was not even covered in the criminal case, a lot more wasn't allowed because he had a high priced slick team of lawyers who exploited every weakness in the system and with the judge to bully the process in their favor. There was also massive incompetence by the prosecutors and there was clear bias among the jurors who later admitted it they knew he was guilty but were sending a message to the system. Apparently that message, in the case of those specific jurors, was if the murderer shares your race, you let them go to make up for previous injustices against people of their race. The elderly white juror said she was harrassed and felt pressured and threatened if she didn't vote not guilty. But none of those facts matter because even if the jury was 100% biased, the trial was over and double jeopardy would prevent him from being punished for his crimes. The civil trial is no small matter. Being LEGALLY responsible for the deaths of 2 people is not some small thing as you seem to present it. It absolutely should be weighed as part of sentencing to show the character of the convicted. They use character witnesses and history all the time to influence sentencing. In this case, they really didn't even press that issue. Once again, it was all in favor of the rich famous guy. Once again he got off as light as possible. If he wasn't already 61 years, this would be no big deal for a thug like him. Only because he's going to be 70 before he gets out is it a big deal. He'll still be a low life menace then too.

Brian