Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Well, he deserves more in my opinion. But 15 years is a good start. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/05/oj-simpson-jailed" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...n-jailed</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan What a profoundly stupid man. He literally got away with murder, and all he had to do to remain free was not get involved in something like this. At no point did it occur to him that getting some guns and thugs to go after someone in Las Vegas was possibly a bad idea?
Originally Posted By DAR Last month after the election Dennis Miller was talking about the joy and happiness he saw in the African American citizens of this country. He talked about how happy he was that they could finally have something good to cheer about. He said that the last time there was an outburst of emotion was the OJ verdict and how incredibly sad it was that the African American community had to cheer a vicious cold blooded killer going free.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka Yeah, that's my thought, too, 2oony. He could have and should have just stuck to golfing for the rest of his life. I don't feel sorry for him at all. I don't care if he didn't get much of a fair trial, either. I think it's his own fault he is notorious. It would be nearly impossible to find a jury of people who haven't heard of him before. I will sleep just fine. He deserves to be in jail. I don't care what he's there for, I really don't.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <<<<<Admits to laughing at OJ as the Security Guard in 'The Towering Inferno'
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I have to look at this from a legal perspective. Putting aside the L.A. case, it would seem a fair point could be made he was made to be an exmaple here and was railroaded. Attorneys with connections to him here in L.A. said he was never offered a plea deal there, which he would have considered, and that Clark County prosecutors were intent on going full bore because it was Simpson. Legally speaking, the murders aside, that stinks out loud.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that as well, SPP. On a personal level, I think all of us has no problem seeing Simpson locked up for the rest of his life. But our system is rightly and importantly designed to ignore his previous trial. In a high profile case with a man we all know committed these murders, it's easy to just wallow in the glory of seeing Simpson led away in handcuffs. But our system is supposed to treat people the same. (Although, I suppose the argument could be made that Simpson only originally got off because he was wealthy and could afford better representation.) On the flip side, I'm hearing that, given what he was charged with, the sentence was actually fairly lenient. Would SPP, or others in the know, say that's accurate?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Karma" I think even he knows that. "On the flip side, I'm hearing that, given what he was charged with, the sentence was actually fairly lenient. Would SPP, or others in the know, say that's accurate?" It is, because while the sentencing report recommended 18 years, they were hoping for life. He's 63, so if he did the entire amount, he'd be 81 when he got out. As it is, he'll be there now until he's at least 70. His appeal will be interesting. I doubt he'll win it, but again, strictly from a legal perspective, these types of cases are what often set appellate law.
Originally Posted By quincytoo >>>Yeah, that's my thought, too, 2oony. He could have and should have just stuck to golfing for the rest of his life. I don't feel sorry for him at all. I don't care if he didn't get much of a fair trial, either. I think it's his own fault he is notorious. It would be nearly impossible to find a jury of people who haven't heard of him before. I will sleep just fine. He deserves to be in jail. I don't care what he's there for, I really don't.<<<< I so agree!!! Heck he could have been jay-walking....karma is a boootch
Originally Posted By Ursula SPP, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know anyone near me to ask! <Attorneys with connections to him here in L.A. said he was never offered a plea deal there, which he would have considered, and that Clark County prosecutors were intent on going full bore because it was Simpson. Legally speaking, the murders aside, that stinks out loud.> Do all cases such as this one offer plea bargains? Or could a case be made for the prosecutors knowing from the evidence that he was guilty and they could prove it. I would imagine that the fear of being a Marsha would have been upon them.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 To my understanding, offering a plea bargain is at the discretion of the prosecutor. In many (perhaps most) cases similar to this, a plea bargain will be offered, which is why a few people think OJ somehow got a bad deal here. But they're not required to offer one, and as long as it's not a requirement, it's the prosecutor's call.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Dabob's answer is accurate. It is often cost efficient and judicially economic to offer pleas. Criminal cases usually end up in trial because the defendant won't take a plea for whatever reason. Defendants insist they're innocent, any kind of conviction could be a third strike (here in CA anyway), whatever. There are of course other reasons cases go to trial, but contrary to the beliefs of some, most prosecutors would rather avoid all that goes into a trial and get a plea if they can, caseloads being what they are. And then there are those cases where the Defendant is O.J. Simpson. I don't want anyone to misunderstand me here. Simpson should never have been in a position to have been tried in Vegas because he should have been locked up back in 1995. But he wasn't, and legally he's gotten the shaft ever since. Is that right or fair? There's the karma thing certainly, and then there's abusing the system to make a point ot right a wrong so to speak, and no one should be proud about that. Speaking only for myself, in a perfect world, this entire Nevada episode is not what the system should be about. But the world isn't perfect. And BTW, it looks like he's doing a minimum of nine years. I thought he was 63, but reports keep saying 61, so he's ona good pace to get out at 70, especially with his speech of contrition at sentencing.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka Here's my thinking...I don't think that OJ got a fair trial the first time around. Oh yeah, he got off, so he got what he wanted but all of the BS stuff about the fake DNA evidence wasn't "fair". His attorneys were tricky and were able to twist around evidence to make 12 people vote "not guilty". Legal, okay, but when you start using terms like "fair", that means something different. Now you're dealing with perceptions about morality, etc. OJ and his attorneys were able to use the law in ways that were nausiating. I don't have a problem with the courts doing the same thing in return. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I don't think that OJ got a fair trial the first time around. Oh yeah, he got off, so he got what he wanted but all of the BS stuff about the fake DNA evidence wasn't "fair". His attorneys were tricky and were able to twist around evidence to make 12 people vote "not guilty". Legal, okay, but when you start using terms like "fair", that means something different. Now you're dealing with perceptions about morality, etc." Well..... not really. It wasn't the DNA testing presented by Sheck so much as basic personality defects in Clark and Darden that allowed for reasonable doubt. When you get down to it, F. Lee Bailey won O.J. his freedom when he goaded Darden into allowing Simpson to try on the glove, followed closely behind by just about anything Mark Fuhrman said or did during the trial. And if you really want to get it down to its basics, then-D.A. Gil Garcetti wanted the trial downtown, as opposed to Santa Monica where it belonged, so he could be near the limelight and keep his hand in the trial. That made for an entirely different jury pool, which is why Simpson's attorneys didn't really object to the change of venue. Plus, the original lead attorney in the case, Bill Hodgman, developed a heart problem just as the case was rolling and had to be replaced. Cochran, et al were thrilled when that happened, not for the bad health, but because Hodgman was and is known as a level headed, thorough, non-game player who would have been extremely hard to beat. In other words, a great trial lawyer. Instead, they got two vain, egomaniacal, paranoid prosecutors who were never really on the same page.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka I agree with all of that, too, SPP. So many bunglings that it just makes me angry to think about. I do think that if CSI had been on tv at the time, the jury would have paid more attention to the DNA evidence, though.
Originally Posted By barboy ///offering a plea bargain is at the discretion of the prosecutor./// Am I the only one who is appalled at that practice as well as criminal immunity in exchange for testimony? During my entire adult life I have questioned the sheer inequity of those criminal law features. It boggles my mind how 'bargains' and 'exemptions' survived the Warren Court years. Those practice disgraces us because it encourages lying(which can severely penalize the innocent)and lets scum off the hook. The state should have enough goods on a suspected guilty party to indict and ultimately to convict otherwise leave it alone. Such 'bargains' and 'exemptions' create a garden of abuse and unfair opportunism.
