This is a discussion on OJ Simpson Sentenced! within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; I'm sorta with Packinova on this one. I think he was treated much more harshly than most folks would in similar circumstances. His trial should ...
I'm sorta with Packinova on this one. I think he was treated much more harshly than most folks would in similar circumstances. His trial should have been separated from the one for the guy who brought the gun.
That said, he was a raving maniac when he was in the room. He was out of control, the kind of out of control that probably happened the night his ex was killed.
On balance, someone is safer with him away because he is not in control of his rage.
Prosecutor to the hypothetical guy who dropped OJ-- "So, let me get this straight, Stewart had the gun but you shot OJ?" What would we all be posting here then? Dummy, stupid, and other names, I'm sure.
Frankly, I think this was a petty case, over charged, and over punished. But, what the heck, you all know by now I'm the softy around here.
And it doesn't matter 'cause the guy got what he deserved, even if it was for something else that he deserved it. That's justice of a sort.
The kidnapping charge is the one I have trouble with.
Well we took him out here in Las Vegas but 16 years is still not justice served for what he really did!!!!
[B]"When seconds count police are minutes away"!
A thug will aways be a thug. Good for the jurors and Las Vegas. The Judge could have given him more time.
The Wheel keeps a Turnin', and his just hit a rock.
In the same manner in which a death resulting from an armed robbery by three felons accrues to all three, even though not all pulled the trigger, it seems reasonable to me that all members of this violating group of robbers is fair game if caught in the act by the defenders. Dealing out refusal to be robbed is rough, and bringing lethal force into play isn't easy to do. But it seems to me that the major responsibility lies with the attacking gang of robbers ... not with the defenders' ability to pick out individual robbers as to what weapons some of them have or don't have. They've got guns and they're executing an armed robbery in all expectation of the targets cowering in response. Stopping an active robbery doesn't seem unreasonable, even if that targets any or all robbers.
I didn't like the criminal decision on this case, and feel there were too many errors made, but that does not mean I would call the jury "criminals", nor the judge, nor the prosecutors same, just because they failed. That's the way the system works.
I find your position interesting given your signature line too:Anyway, that's just my .05. Nothing more or less."My God David, We're a Civilized society."
"Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
The news last night indicated OJ had rejected a rather lenient plea-bargain too, thus assuming the risk of trial and conviction. One more nail in his Tomb of Arrogance.
This thread brings up two issues I'm quite uncomfortable about. 1) This business of being able to charge someone for the acts of another in the group. We had a situation here in Texas where a guy was executed for murder. But, he was in the car and not in the store where the crime was committed. Claimed he didn't know the other fellow had a gun or intended to hurt anyone. The actual murderer somehow didn't get the death penalty. Something is wrong with the logic and the justice for this specific case. And similarly, OJ didn't have a gun, and didn't threaten anyone with a gun, yet he got a longer sentence than the guy who did have the gun. Strange.
And it is impossible for me to believe the judge didn't actually take the history of the wife's case into account at sentencing; though she wouldn't admit it of course. He is no good, but this case was overcharged and over punished.
2) I don't like the use of civil trials to punish people who were acquitted in a criminal trial. You can't have the truth both ways. Either guilty or not. The way the civil trial in the OJ case was used, it was a second bite at the apple.
All of that said, locking the guy up is probably going to save someone from getting hurt. Wow, he sure had an interesting bunch of "friends."
The judge explicitly stated she did not consider the double murder. I assume you are calling her a liar.And it is impossible for me to believe the judge didn't actually take the history of the wife's case into account at sentencing; though she wouldn't admit it of course. He is no good, but this case was overcharged and over punished.I agree completely. A civil case should right monetary wrongs. Exactly what expenses was the $33 million supposed to cover?2) I don't like the use of civil trials to punish people who were acquitted in a criminal trial. You can't have the truth both ways. Either guilty or not. The way the civil trial in the OJ case was used, it was a second bite at the apple.Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.All of that said, locking the guy up is probably going to save someone from getting hurt.
Yes, sort of. I don't believe she was able to separate herself because she is a human being. Might have been better to say nothing about it at all. We'll see later on appeal.The judge explicitly stated she did not consider the double murder. I assume you are calling her a liar.
And, I think the punishment was over the top,
although I am glad he is away for a long time. If the same scene happened in a dorm room, some kids got into a scrape over a laptop or some books, or an MP3, and someone pulled a knife, they wouldn't have put a kidnapping charge on the folks. And I doubt that anyone but the idiot with the knife would be prosecuted if it was established that the laptop etc, belonged to the kids who went to recover it. The whole deal except the assault with a deadly weapon would have been turned to a misdemeanor. What happened in this OJ case just isn't a logical thing. It rewards the thiefs (the guys who had his stuff or Goldman's stuff whichever way you look at it), and denies an element of justice to the folks who were wronged to begin with by the theft (OJ and the Goldmans).I know a man who lost his daughter in an auto accident. He was unable to sue, he was told, because a minor had no economic value. (And the folks who caused the accident had no insurance and nothing to collect anyway.) The Goldman boy, being an adult, did have economic value. It was the jury's job to determine how much.I agree completely. A civil case should right monetary wrongs. Exactly what expenses was the $33 million supposed to cover?G-d and the justice system move in mysterious ways.Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
OJ found out the hard way that Nevada ain't California.
"First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
Edge of Darkness