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

I am as sickened as anyone by the O.J. acquittal ten plus years ago and consider it a perversion of justice just like the trials over the Rodney King incident (both acquittals), but this verdict is every bit a perversion of justice as those were.

The ONLY reason he was charged is because the state wanted a second bite at the apple. Do I feel sorry for O.J.? NO. Do I feel sorry for integrity of the justice system? Absolutely. If this had been anyone BUT O.J., there wouldn't have even been a trial. God help us.

O.J. Sentenced to as many as 33 Years

LAS VEGAS – A broken O.J. Simpson was sentenced Friday to as many as 33 years in prison for a hotel armed robbery after a judge rejected his apology and said, "It was much more than stupidity." The 61-year-old football Hall of Famer stood shackled and stone-faced as Judge Jackie Glass rattled off the punishment. Moments before, Simpson made a rambling, five-minute plea for leniency, simultaneously apologizing for the holdup as a foolish mistake and trying to justify his actions.

He choked back tears as he told her: "I didn't want to steal anything from anyone. ... I'm sorry, sorry."

BTW - he will do ALL 33 years of this sentence (which means he is gonna die in jail) because of the way he is hated in society. He is being punished for the murders, not for this lame robbery. There will be HUGE pressure on any parole board NOT to grant parole and any board that votes for parole will be lambasted in the press and held accountable by an irate public who feel somehow that justice is being served. They are perverting the constitution, IMHO.

Well rb,
I suspect O.J. will be paroled somewhere down the line. I doubt he will die in Jail. I also suspect he wanted to get caught, as strange as it seems, because of his guilt in the murders of Nocole and Ron Goldman.

One of the most disgusting things about O.J. is his complete lack of guilt over the murders. He is a self-absorbed psychopath who makes everyone sick by the way he handles himself in public, laughing and joking on the golf course and pretending nothing is wrong.

If he ever gets parole, I will be surprised. The parole boards are constantly second-guessed every time one of their paroles murders another child and they almost NEVER even consider parole in high profile cases like this one. O.J.'s only hope is a pardon by the governor or the president, which will NEVR happen because that would be political suicide (even though it would be the right thing to do).

He was involved in an armed robbery! If 4-5 guys burst into a room where I was selling merchandise and pointed a gun at me and took all the stuff, I would hope they would be arrested and sent to jail.

Kevin

The shame isn't that OJ was properly convicted for something he DID in fact do. The shame is that most people who do the same thing DON'T get convicted for ALSO violating the law. Our system is ridiculously lax and let's murders out in a few years. I think all murderers should have life without Parole unless their convictions are overturned. I don't think you can rehab a murderer outside of someone guilty of involuntary manslaughter. OJ was sentenced on the low end of the guideline and with that conviction there was a mandatory minimum at play. He got off light. He simply wasn't able to plea it down in the interest in judicial expediency. But he did the crime and the time given was totally within and in fact at the low end of what he COULD have gotten if they'd thrown the max at him. He'll be up for parole in only 9 years. Seems like too light of a sentence for armed robbery. And though he got off the criminal portion of his trial, he was found legally RESPONSIBLE for the deaths of 2 people. And then he clearly stated on tape his desire to circumvent the law to get around paying the court ordered restitution.

A thug was convicted of a real crime that he actually committed. He was sentenced on the low end of what was available to the judge. He got off easy. Your complaint, if you have one, should be that few others are held responsible for their actions at all.

Brian

He was sentenced the same way that any other thug would be sentenced who used a gun to commit a crime. If the gun wasn't there, it would be different.

9 years for butchering 2 people, then committing armed robbery is pretty lax..I don't care about the circumstances, justice delayed beats no justice at all. To use a football analogy..If this is the ultimate "make up call" so be it, he's where he belongs now {finally!}

Glad he is finally where he belongs and I hope that any "payroll" board takes his previous into consideration.
He should never ever get out.

I watched the murder trial. It was screened on UK TV blow by blow. The evidence was overwhelming, a classic open and shut case. However the bozos on the hand picked jury managed to ignore all of the evidence and believed only the spin and nonesense about the "glove not fitting" I could not believe the stupidity of these people.
That did the American justice system no favours.

Similarily in the UK we have just reached the conclusion of the trial of multiple murderer Peter Tobin.... thankfully he was found guilty....it took several previous convictions for serious stuff, a number of rapes and murders, and a few prison sentences before they finally realised he should not be out on the streets PERIOD.

Methinks it's WELL deserved. How stupid can you be?

With OJ in jail, who's going to be looking for the "real killers" at the golf courses in Miami?

I was horrified when O.J. was aquitted; now I am very happy that he is finally held accountable for his actions. He just assumed that once again eh would do whatever he wanted...Nice to see that he couldn't get all that special treatment again.


Emily

My thoughts go out to the Brown and Goldman families. I hope they can finally find some peace now that the arrogant bastard is finally where he belongs!

The best part is that the guy who thrives on attention is going to spend the years in solitary confinement outside of 1 hour a day he gets visitors. Now it's clear he's likely going to have visitors every day the rest of his life which is more than most people get that are free and he'll likely have zillions of sick psycho female fans sending him everything imaginable because every serial killer and celebrity psychopath gets that stuff, but still, it's sort of an extra special kick in the nuts to someone who deserves that sort of thing.

He'll probably get out in time to die in obscurity. Even that will be justice eh?

Brian

AMEN, Brian

Emily

I think OJ thought his fame would "buy" his way out of this and that was his undoing. He got a lawyer who is one of those talking heads so often on CNN, a real big kahuna. The prosecutors offered OJ a plea bargain, which the average Joe would have probably taken, but OJ, with his kahuna lawyer, didn't think that was good enough. So, OJ got what was actually a run of the mill, maybe even a little less, sentence for a perp who refused to take the deal. This time, the jury knew it too. The Emperor finally was seen to have no clothes.

Yeah, most people would have gotten less, because their lawyers aren't tv stars whose stock goes down if they cop a plea.

So long, OJ, enjoy the showers.

There's only so much indignation I can spare.
I don't have any available for Mr. Simpson.

I only wish that my father could have lived to see this. He always said that Judge Ito was a weak Judge to allow Johnny Cochran to take over his court. Ito should be publicly flogged. He allowed that trial to become a spectacle which it what it was.

I agree, Ben. Many of us here is Los Angeles felt that way about Johnie Cochran, as well as the fact that the trial was moved downtown, the make up of the jury, etc--- ALL a reflection of a very weak judge.

Emily

Judges are generally an arrogant lot, from my limited experience with them, and they really do not tolerate arrogance from others. I think most judges would respond to someone in a similar fashion as this if the defendant was as arrogant as O.J.

Ito was clearly a weak personality who was swept up in the media frenzy and enjoyed the spotlight as much as O.J. and Johnny Cochran.

I agree, Jack...That judge was considered a pawn of the media...I will never forget the reaction here when the trisl was moved from O.J.'s neighborhood to downtown...such an obvious bias on the part of the judge.

Emily

I agree that the judge was weak and it was a circus and yes Cochrane ran all over him. I watched the trial blow by blow. Even after all these circumstances the evidence was substantial and overwhelming. However any blame for injustice has to be laid firmly and squarely with the jury. They must have either been paid off or were blind stupid and deaf NOT to find OJ guilty. I do not know anybody who could have reached the same conclusion faced with the same evidence.

As mentioned above, OJ was offered a plea bargain that, rightly or wrongly, would have significantly reduced his jail time and he turned it down (Oops). Was that arrogance or stupidity?

both!

I am just hopping in here with my two cents worth before bedtime but the irony of this is pretty remarkable. Both trials were travesties. It makes me worry about our whole criminal justice system. If OJ could, in the first trial, have been acquitted with the overwhelming preponderance of evidence, and in the last trial, be convicted on the preposterous "pretend" evidence, what hope do we have that there is really any "justice" in our criminal justice system?

Pretend Evidence?

They had him on both video and audio tape committing the crime.
The fact that he was stupid, or arrogant, enough to think it was not a crime to break into a hotel room with a couple of known thugs and commit armed robbery doesn't make it a "pretend crime".

He got what you would have got if you had done the same thing, Joe.

I have a friend who's dumb ass 18 year old son walked into a convenience store with an unloaded shotgun and stole a couple hundred bucks. They got him on video tape. He is 18 years old and is doin 15 years for his "pretend" Armed robbery.

I won't hi-jack this thread, but if you want to hear about really stupid crimes, like Bill mentioned, I have a few doozies from a couple of guys who went to high school with me.

I don't know what is worse.

In the first trial, there was clear evidence the police who investigated OJ were racist, corrupt, and planted evidence, which ALONE should have been grounds of acquital...and in fact, this is what swayed the jury....but don't take my word, go back and see what the jurors had to say.

Now some of you are agreeing that, man, they didn't get him the first time, but YEAHHHH, they got him now....so punish him this time for those murders for which he was acquitted.

This is, if you can at all stand back a bit, petty and vindictive...great underpinnings of justice....

But then justice in the US is not fair or blind or equitable....full stop.

20/20 did a great show on how the dumb and poor are browbeaten into accepting guilty pleas, even though there is scant evidence of guilt. And get this, even if afterwards there is clear evidence that person is NOT guilty, the justice systems says...ohhh, we can't do anything, they pled guilty....

Given your attitudes as exemplified here, it does not appear anyone will stand up to change this...so the innocent poor and dumb will continue to be browbeaten into prison, and in some cases will be innocent and executed....

Was OJ guilty of the murders? My opinion and yours are as valid as a fart in a windstorm...we'll just never know

And the lot of you who tie the two cases together and use it to justify the outcome of this case...well, you're pitiful and you suck...big time..

SJH...I'm with you 90%...except I see the evidence this time...he WAS guilty, (as were his cohorts who got off lightly for turning state's evidence) but he's being punished for the last time more than this crime...

My basic message to my Southern friends? This outcome should scare you more than it satisfies your blood lust

Ah, It was just a matter of time before some knucklehead made it personal...Way to go John, you win the prize!

Hey I'll stand up for what I see as injustice anytime Bob...and this is not personal...it's a general comment, or attack if you will, on the seedy side of justice. Convictions at all cost, clear these cases, sentences based on the politics of the situation.....


though I see your point in that I called them pitiful etc...which I retract with an apology...I let my passion get in the way there...

From what I gather the evidence in both cases was overwhelming. How long do you think anyone SHOULD get for armed robbery? According to other similar armed robbery cases and what is prescribed by law he got what he deserved. The first trial does not even enter into the equation. He was punished for armed robbery which he was guilty of...nothing else. He is a despicable human being and deserves to rot in prison.

I watched the first trial everyday and followed it with much interest. Whilst it was alleged that there was incompetence when gathering evidence and some of the police were possibly corrupt and racist there was still a stack of legit evidence plenty enough to convict.
The jury sucked.... not us who say OJ eventually got what he deserved.
Cochrane & Co. did a good job spinning, blustering and twisting simple evidence into confusion. Sadly these "HARD OF THINKING" jurors could not see through it. BTW The gloves DID fit I have seen photos taken of him wearing them at a football match before the murder and the ones taken in court with him holding up the same perfectly fitting gloves. If his innocence depended on the gloves fitting he would have slipped them on easy.

When you tell people they suck, they will probably take it personally. If you cannot make your argument without insults then you cannot really make your argument.

Actually as I stated earlier, I have a huge problem with what OJ got this time. He once again got off too easy, as nearly EVERYONE does in our system. People are nearly ALWAYS plead down to next to nothing for judicial expediency. The system has become bloated and lazy. Murders are seen as no big deal. Even child rape, which in my opinion is second only to child murder on the list of most heinous crimes you can commit, regularly results in probation or very short jail terms. Using a gun in any illegal situation should result in a serious penalty. Using it to intimidate others who fear their lives are threatened should certainly result in more than 9 years in prison I think. The problem here is not what OJ got, it's that he got off easy and his cohorts got off even easier. OJ himself was offered barely more than a slap on the wrist, but he obviously thought he could once again get off completely. How anyone, including you John, can feel angry over the fact that after denying a slap on the wrist and being found guilty he got the low end of the sentencing guideline is baffling. Frankly, he got off easy again.

I do agree with you that the poor often don't get the sweetheart deals that the rich get. That's obvious. The rich get away with murder (literally). But that doesn't mean that the guilty don't deserve punishment because some get away with it. The problem is that not ALL the guilty get punished.

If 2 people commit murder and only 1 goes to prison, you should be angry that 1 DIDN'T go to prison, not angry that 1 DID go to prison. The person murdered was someone else's family member. If it was YOUR family member, I doubt you'd be so angry that they went to jail for the murder just because they happened to be poor.

In this case, a rich guy with overwhelming evidence against him who was found guilty once again got the light end of a sentence. That is what you should be angry about.

Brian

Actually Big Jim, he was guilty of a number of felonies, not just armed robbery...that alone would get you, from what I saw, about 10 years....

So the 33 year sentence was the sum of sentences for the individual crimes...but there is discretion in HOW it it served...concurrently (he'll serve about 10 years) or consecutively (he'll serve the full 33)...

No one really knows at the moment...at least from what I can see...but we're all assuming he's gone for the full 33....which IMO is based more on the politics and past than on the crime...

And as far as the first trial...no question there was real evidence...but proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt...and that burden, according to the jury, was not met AND came in large part from the discredited actions of the police....THAT is scary.

Brian, if it is in fact 9 years, then he is being treated like most others in his position, and I have no beef with it. He is guilty beyond any doubt...in my mind, legally...and deserves to be treated like any common criminal who has committed the same crime

33 years is, as I said, excessive for what he did. As you point out, people who commit far more serious crimes often (rightly or wrongly) get less...of course depending on the circumstance.

So let's see what it ends up as being...

For me, as long as he is not being sentenced for "getting away with murder", all is fine....

And I in turn retract the "Knucklehead" comment. Truce!

It is not often I agree with Brian but I agree on this issue.
If you cannot do the time then do not do the crime. I also am shocked that cohorts are given immunity. This is a tradition that needs to be stopped. All of the men involved should be charged, convicted and facing lengthy prison sentences.
I have just read a book called "The Innocent Man" by John Grisham. Worth reading. It is the true story of Ron Williamson a failed baseball player who became an alcoholic and had a mental illness. He was imprisoned for many years for a murder he did not commit. His conviction had no evidence other than a confession which was obtained under extreme duress and threats. Ironically Johnny Cochrane was instrumental in freeing him.

John,

I think you forget that he WAS found LEGALLY responsible for the deaths of 2 people. That's no light finding. Just because he skated on murder charged due to his money and fame, he could not escape being held responsible. Combine that with someone who was involved in an armed robbery and those should be legitimate aggravating circumstances to give him a more serious conviction sentence once he refused a plea deal. He got the very low end of what he could have gotten. Usually, when someone refuses a plea deal and is later convicted, the system doesn't give them the very lightest sentence available. They give them something at the higher end. OJ once again got off light. And he only got off that light due to his fame and money and high powered attorneys. Had he been an unknown thug who had been responsible for 2 deaths and was covicted in this case AND had refused a plea offer, he would have gotten a harsher sentence.

Be angry that criminals get off easy. Not that some have a harsher sentence than others. When you do the crime, you are putting yourself up for the most severe sentence legally available. If you get anything less, it's at the discretion of the courts. You have no right to complain even if you get the harshest sentence possible. So don't do the crime in the first place.

Sorry.. no tears here for OJ. And people are perfectly correct in their feelings of joy that a guy who got off on 2 murders is finally getting punishment he deserves for a brand new action. Just because someone skates on a criminal case doesn't at ALL mean they didn't do the crime. And since it's become obvious even to the most stringent doubters that he did commit the murders (and his actual testimony in the public civil trial was a good indicator of the truth) it's hardly wrong for anyone on the planet to be glad that a murder is behind bars finally. And if OJ had been shot down by one of his thug friends, I think everyone would have had the perfect right to cheer his death as well. The world would have been a better place. It hardly makes people wrong for cheering the obvious.

Brian

Jim,

It must feel great to finally be right this time eh? ; )

Brian

I am sure it does. It will eventually wear off and feel less novel if you get even more things right. I got used to the feeling ages ago.

Hey OJ, Big Bubba said pick up dat soap NOW!!!

sorry couldn't resist. i just have a feeling ,given the chance, someone in there will take him out.

They're keeping him in Solitary apparently for the entire term. He'll get visitors 1 hour per day and have no other contact with anyone other than occassional prison staff.

What an American tragedy. One of the best running backs of all time making a pitiful plea for leniency when it was too late. He should have taken the stand during the trial and pleaded leniency then. Does anybody feel anything for this guy? I know he is a murderer. I know he is arrogant and a bully, but he is still a human being in need of redemption, just like the rest of us. I can't imagine any darker place that what is in store for him for the next 10 years- alone in his cell and alone in his own mind. I don't think a human being can get any more lost than to have lived such an elaborate lie for so long. There may be no way back to his own soul- if so, that would be the definition of Hell.

A guy gets famous and adored because he can what? Run fast with a football? Acts in a few B movies?
But in his private life he is a wife beater and a bully. Commits two murders. Not just murders. Brutal murders against a couple helpless victims. Imagine the horror of Ron Goldman as he was try to fend off the attack, the fear. He had defensive wounds on his arms and hands.
And we should call it an American Tragedy? The deaths of Ron and Nicole are the tragedy.
Not that it was done by a football player.
It is sad that we put these people on such pedestals.
If the guy had found the cure for aids, or Autism, or developed cold fusion, or a good cheap alternate to oil, I might call it a tragedy....
but someone who got rich and famous for playing football....Naa. .. I'll pass. He was a thug, a bully, a killer, nothing more.

Of course it's a tragedy. But what about the folks he robbed at gunpoint. Have you ever been robbed at gunpoint? I have. Have you ever been held somewhere at gunpoint? I have.

As a teenager, I was robbed in front of my high school while waiting for a bus. The guy got 43 cents. He had a gun in his pocket which he showed me. After I gave him the 43 cents he hit me. If he didn't have a gun he wouldn't have hit me, I was a lot bigger. He was a sissy, no personal responsibility. Lots of folks like that in Chicago. Lots of folks like that these days.

As an adult, I got a job here in Nashville selling coupon books door to door. We'd get addresses of folks who said over the phone that they were interested, so we went there to "close" them. At one location, a guy had bought a book months before only to find out that most of the coupons were already expired, so when I went in his house to sell him the book, he brought out a shotgun. Pretty soon he figured out there was nothing I could do about it and let me go. He was a fool. He could have spent real jail time for a $20 coupon book. The other guy could have spent real jail time for 43 cents.

O.J. isn't an American Tragedy, he's a human tragedy. He's a power trip with no personal responsibility. It doesn't matter if he's the best running back, or just a punk who's making a pitiful plea for leniency. He was in a dark place for a long time, all from the choices he made. Now he needs to "man up" and face the consequences of those choices.

That's, perhaps, the biggest problem with contemporary society. The marriage of control issues with no personal responsibility. Sometimes it uses being poor as an excuse, sometimes religious indignation and false righteousness, sometimes political indignation and false righteousness, sometimes entitlement and elitism. They say, "I deserve it so let the other guy pay for it, but not poor me." Yuck.

I'm not crying.

Yes Brian, guilty in a civil case where the burden of proof is not "beyond reasonable doubt" but "probably"....so again, your opinion of his criminal guilt or innocence is only that..opinion....which should not be the basis for any criminal conviction..in court or in the court of public opinion...because it's a big leap from "probably" to "certainty"

Is our (and I include Canada here) justice system broken? No doubt...we've been paying people who spent years in jail for a crime they did not commit...we regularly read about people committing crimes while out on bail or parole, we read about repeat offenders who got out early....yeah, no doubt the system is not perfect..and yeah, I'm not happy with that at all.

And re read what I said...IF his sentence was based in part for a past crime he was found not guilty of, then that is is a travesty of justice...IF his sentence was based solely on this crime (and here he is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt), then all is fine by me.

John
I am having a bit of trouble understanding what you are saying.
Are you upset because you think OJ is being punished for the Murders and you believe he is innocent of those murders?

Do you honestly believe he did not kill his wife and Ron Goldman?

I don't think there are very many people in this country who believe he did NOT kill them. Even a lot of the folks that cheered when he was found not guilty (which does NOT mean innocent) believe he did it. They cheered because he beat "The Man"
He got off because of inept prosecutors, a great defense team, a stupid judge, and jurors who were manipulated into believing there was planted evidence and he was being persecuted because he was Black.

If you do believe he did it then why would you be upset at this sentence?

He Killed them, everybody knows it, and he should have been executed for it, not playing golf in Miami.

Bill I have issues when people say...yeah got the B^*&^ now...he's finally gonna pay for what he did to Nicole and Ron.

Despite your or mine or anyone's opinion of guilt or innocence, the fact is a court of law found him innocent...meaning that none of that should enter into anything that has to do with this crime...so this sentence should NOT have ANYTHING to do with "getting away with murder".

Arguing any other way means you condone a justice system that says "well, we don't agree with the prior court's decision, so we're going to make you pay this time for a crime you were found innocent of because we do not agree with that verdict" ...which is what some folks are arguing for.

That to me is a perversion of justice and far too close to vindictiveness...

John, do you believe he was convicted on this robbery because people think he killed before, or because he was guilty of this crime? I believe he was clearly guilty of this crime. I also happen to believe he got away with murder. I am happy if he gets the maximum the law allows, and I do not care what another person in his shoes would get. That is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. This is a man who is clearly guilty of this offense and even after conviction is trying to claim he did not think it was a crime, so there is no remorse for his actions, only for his conviction.

I do not link one crime with the other, however, do I think that those who feel he got away with murder is wrong for feeling that he is finally getting what he deserved? No, it is human nature. I don't think this sentence will ever make up for it, nor is it intended to.

The first trial was a travesty from a legal standpoint. I do not believe that he was entitled to an acquittal in the first trial, but it certainly should have been declared a mistrial. The prosecution should have regrouped and made sure that they had solid evidence that could not be refuted and gone after him again. The retrial should have included a change of venue and a different judge. The original change of venue was orchestrated entirely by the defense team and should have been distantly removed from the LA area altogether.

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