Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While I do not like that OJ basically got away with murder, I was a bit annoyed they seemed to use this case to punish him retroactively though. Other judges and prosecutors have said if this was any other person that did these same things, it would like 6 months max in jail, if that. Its not right he was singled out and given an extreme sentence, just because of the verdict in his murder trial.
He never should have been locked up LIKE THAT behind that stuff in the first place, it was worthy of nothing more than "community service at best". Everyone knows what that was all about.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY, DRIVEN BY RACE BIAS AIMS.
While I do not like that OJ basically got away with murder, I was a bit annoyed they seemed to use this case to punish him retroactively though. Other judges and prosecutors have said if this was any other person that did these same things, it would like 6 months max in jail, if that. Its not right he was singled out and given an extreme sentence, just because of the verdict in his murder trial.
Yep. I agree. Not condoning his actions in this most recent case but, as far as the law is concerned, he was a first time offender, which made his sentence unusual/ridiculous. While I believe that OJ did it (per the murders), he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. This was the result largely of an incompetent prosecution, but he was found not guilty nonetheless. Seriously, if I was on the jury there was no way in hell I'd vote to convict him for the murders after he couldn't fit the gloves that the prosecution claims he wore to commit the murders . . . as a legal matter, it created too much reasonable doubt.
Yep. I agree. Not condoning his actions in this most recent case but, as far as the law is concerned, he was a first time offender, which made his sentence unusual/ridiculous. While I believe that OJ did it (per the murders), he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. This was the result largely of an incompetent prosecution, but he was found not guilty nonetheless. Seriously, if I was on the jury there was no way in hell I'd vote to convict him for the murders after he couldn't fit the gloves that the prosecution claims he wore to commit the murders . . . as a legal matter, it created too much reasonable doubt.
I read where O.J.'s physician told him if he quit taking his arthritis medicine his hands would swell. Shortly thereafter, his hands starting swelling.
In any case, it was an armed robbery and the sentencing was within guidelines.
Yep. I agree. Not condoning his actions in this most recent case but, as far as the law is concerned, he was a first time offender, which made his sentence unusual/ridiculous. While I believe that OJ did it (per the murders), he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. This was the result largely of an incompetent prosecution, but he was found not guilty nonetheless. Seriously, if I was on the jury there was no way in hell I'd vote to convict him for the murders after he couldn't fit the gloves that the prosecution claims he wore to commit the murders . . . as a legal matter, it created too much reasonable doubt.
I think 9 years was fair for 12 counts including robbery, kidnapping, burglary and assault all with a deadly weapon. And he conspired to do it, not just a random act. The state wanted 18 years minimum sentence. It could have been worse.
I read where O.J.'s physician told him if he quit taking his arthritis medicine his hands would swell. Shortly thereafter, his hands starting swelling.
In any case, it was an armed robbery and the sentencing was within guidelines.
Within guidelines and within norms are too different things. Prosecutors/judges are supposed to deliver justice blindly, and not be guided by some external factors. A 33 year sentence (which is what he was given . . . he only got out early for good behavior/parole guidelines) for a first time offender was way too long based on norms. Note, I personally wouldn't have a problem with someone convicted of what OJ was convicted of serving 33 long years, but that's neither here nor there.
As to the medication issue, that narrative is mere hearsay (double or triple hearsay, actually), and hearsay that I haven't even seen supported by medical experts; I've seen the failed prosecutor make this claim, except he claims that OJ's lawyers told him to stop taking the medication for that reason: OJ Simpson 'stopped taking arthritic medication so his hands would SWELL' | Daily Mail Online
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 10-01-2017 at 12:13 PM..
I think 9 years was fair for 12 counts including robbery, kidnapping, burglary and assault all with a deadly weapon. And he conspired to do it, not just a random act. The state wanted 18 years minimum sentence. It could have been worse.
A 9 year sentence would have been more within norms for a first time offender convicted of what OJ was convicted of based on what I'm reading, which would mean that the person serving such a sentence could be eligible for early release based on good behavior/parole/etc. But OJ received a 33 year sentence; he only served 9 years because of good behavior/parole dynamics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
