Should we care if OJ Simpson gets screwed?

It’s hard to imagine a less sympathetic figure than OJ Simpson sitting in a jail cell.  So should we care if he gets screwed? 

Tonight, on cable news, I watched person after person — including a member of the Goldman family — expressing joy that justice was finally going to be done in the Brown/Goldman murders.  But that’s not true, of course.  That trial ended 12 years ago, and rightly or wrongly Simpson was acquitted and can never be made to stand trial for those crimes again.

But is there any doubt that the Los Vegas authorities are taking a special interest in the current armed robbery charges based upon Simpson’s notorious history?  He’s being held without bond.  The authorities seem inclined toward overcharging (trying to stack on every charge imaginable in order to increase possible penalties).  And police are throwing resources into the investigation in a way that’s wholly out of proportion to what would normally be expected given the nature of the crime.

Yes, they got Al Capone for tax evasion.  But you don’t get someone for a murder they were found not guilty of by way of an armed robbery that occurs more than a decade later.

The circumstances of Simpson’s arrest (so far as they have been made public) are murky.  The only thing we seem to know for certain is that there were no boy scouts in that hotel room.  If Simpson’s guilty of armed robbery, a very serious crime, then he deserves to do time: but he deserves to do time for the robbery, not for something unrelated that most of us believe he’s guilty of, but which was never proven (as a crime) in a court of law, however awful it may have been.

9 Responses to “Should we care if OJ Simpson gets screwed?”

  1. fdarbe Says:

    I don’t think OJ can get a fair trial. How do you find anyone braindead enough to sit in judgement, especially with the current media frenzy. It only takes a few people who think they are punishing him for what he was found not guily of 12 years ago.

  2. smartelf Says:

    Err, I am gonna respectfully disagree with you. When a person develops a pattern of sociopathic behavior, one has to be more inclined to throw the book at ‘em and deny bail. There is a strong probability OJ is crazy enough to go and intimidate these people to recant their charges against him should he be freed. He has clearly displayed bizarre public behavior on numerous occasions. Just because he was found not-guilty does not mean you give him a clean slate, that is naive in the extreme — and furthermore he was found guilty in a civil trial on virtually the same charges. The man is a menace to society and he deserves to be put under more scrutiny than someone with a clean record.

  3. alwayshope Says:

    My initial reaction was , He’s an arrogant, violent ass. I hope they lock him up.”
    After I thought about it, I’ve decided that he’s got a lot nerve and arrogance to think he could take the law into his own hands even if his stuff was stolen. I hope they lock him up.

  4. Larry the Red Says:

    To answer Steve’s question, yes, we should care. I can see why a high bail might be appropriate, but no bail at all (at least yet), in a case that involves no capital crimes, is outrageous. It is a right guaranteed by the federal and ll state constitutions, after all. Given the 6-year assault on the very notion of the rule of law we have endured, should we even have to ask this question? I guess we do, given OJ’s history, but it still saddens me.

  5. fdarbe Says:

    Smartelf, we are based on the rule of law. OJ was found not guilty and in the eyes of the law that means he is to be treated just as any other citizen who has never comitted a crime.

    The judge already has treted him differently for that slow speed chase from 12 years ago. The Goldman’s are salivating at getting their hands on whatever he was trying to get back.

    If OJ is not treated farily and equitbly under the law, then they can do it to any of us. If he gets tossed into jail for a crime he was found innocent of 12 years ago, we are comiting an act of vengance not performing an act of justice.

    Hopefully, the police in Vegas will be more careful with their investigation than the police here in California.

  6. Chuck Says:

    I’m not so sure the rule of law applies here in the U.S. anymore. Call ANYBODY an “enemy combatant” & Habeas Corpus is gone, as is the right to a lawyer. With this Supreme Court of right-wing zealots opting for elected despotism, I’m not so sure I trust that there is any “equitable justice” anymore.

    O.J. is not one of my favorite people, though he was as a football player. He’s black, famous and a fool, and I don’t think he stands a chance of a fair trial.

  7. Chuck Says:

    Now that I think about it a bit more, has there been ANY of the bill of rights that haven’t been violated by this administration? Maybe the 3d amendment, but I’m not sure about that one either. And look at the 9th–that murky one should cover a whole lot of crap that nobody seems to bring up.

  8. Larkrise Says:

    Steve, I understand and appreciate the principle you are upholding: That under the law, given the nature of the crime, everyone should be treated equally. You are absolutely correct. The last jury trial for Mr. Simpson was a travesty of justice. Jury nullification went into effect. The jurors were more interested in “getting even” with society, than improving it. There was intimidation of at least one jury member and perhaps more. The trial was a spectacle, not a process to find justice. The circumstances facing O.J. at the moment are quite different. It is wrong to use this misadventure to make up for what occurred 12 years ago. All that said, I agree with smartself, when referring to a pattern of criminal behavior and intimidation. O.J. displays the classic traits of a sociopathic personality disorder. He has been in numerous altercations over the intervening years. His judgement remains poor and his actions erratic. Whether the articles in question belonged to him or not, bursting into someone’s hotel room and threatening them is dangerous behavior. If weapons were involved, and the person was not allowed to leave the room, a serious crime has occurred. O.J. directed the show. If you have listened to the tape, you can ascertain that it was a frightening experience for the victim. The question of bail is a troublesome one. I do agree that is not correct procedure and is discriminatory. But, throwing the book at this criminal is fine by me. The next victim might not come out of one of O.J.’s escapades alive. The man cannot control his anger. He IS a danger to society.

  9. smartelf Says:

    He is locked up because he committed armed robbery in the 1st degree. He is being held without bail because he is known to flee authorities based on his past actions, and also his behavior during the robbery probably indicates he may go after the victims again to shut them up. I don’t believe he is being held without bail because of his murder acquittal 12 yrs ago.. and again I must point out he lost his civil case. I am not suggesting we toss the rule of law out the window, but when a judge determines bail he has the duty to take all factors in account and that includes looking at an individuals history and listening to all parties who may protest his release… I am sure the Goldmans and all the victims do not want this guy roaming about and I am sure they have hired lawyers to make that point. Again, OJ ran away once he might try it again as crazy as it sounds to us who are sane, and maybe this time he is going to go out on a shooting rampage or something… who knows? If this was his first offense he’d be walking free right now… I believe he has committed crime in Florida … but the details are fuzzy.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.