Constant Content

I feel it a tragedy that OJ was not convicted of killing his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman - he so did it. And can someone, please, explain to me in layman's terms how one legal system can find a man guilty and one find him innocent of the same charges? What's up with that? As for his current prediciment -- for which he says "Anybody else wouldn't be going to court" I can only hope he finally gets what's coming to him -- even though it will be a much lesser punishment than what he would have gotten for a double cold-blooded murder.

I tend to reserve judgement on the OJ trial. Ever read about the Bobby Dunbar case? Check it out sometime. That's a case study in how the media can manipulate public perception - if you have the time, listen to "This American Life", episode 352, "The Ghost of Bobby Dunbar". I'd have a firmer opinion about OJ had I been there in the courtroom rather than getting my information through the firehose filter of mass media. I'm not apologizing for him - I think he *probably* did it, I'm just saying that without removing the middle man, I cannot be sure. It's not like the Rodney King thing, where we had video. Those guys should certainly have been convicted, or at the very least fired for incompetence. Even though that trial did turn up a lot of problems with training and policy, still, SOMEONE should have been smart enough to go "Wait, this isn't working."

As to how someone can be found innocent and guilty of the same charge, I'm assuming you mean how can he be acquitted of the murder, but still be found liable in a wrongful death case. That's because criminal convictions require proof "Beyond all reasonable doubt", whereas civil suits only require "a preponderance of evidence". These are dramatically different standards, and this outcome is not at all unusual. It's hard for citizens to understand the situations where "Everyone knows he did it, but we just can't prove it to a jury", but they happen all the time.

-jstevewhite

The one question our American justice system asks is...if it is better to let a guilty man go free or to imprison an innocent man? OJ's guilt or innocence was inconsequential. The real question is the burden of proof. And there are a LOT more injustices occurring in our nation without us worrying about one stupid football star...seriously people, the whole fad fashion of the American court system as a media ploy irritates the HECK out of me. You know, in our country a woman, man or child is raped every minute. So while everyone had their eyeballs tuned into Fox "news" watching a court case that we have no control over, there is an abused woman, child, or man who could have used time, effort, and help to better their situation.

I don't see how the OJ case was important at all. It did nothing to help abused spouses, all it did was raise OJ on some media fueled crazy pedestal. What we should have been doing is helping Battered Persons, not watching OJ's stupid glove.

The real great American let down was the temporary removal of habeas corpus by our esteemed and astute President recently. When this writ was removed temporarily in the US after WW2, it was the precursor for the Japanese-American, German-American, Socialist and Communist "camps" that the federal government created and held captive many families. Furthermore, the temporary removal of this writ allows the federal government to hold anyone for any reason of terrorism, real or contrived, for any amount of time they so choose...hence Guantanamo Bay. However, as this is just a short rant, please forgive any technical stupidity errors as I am just typing off the top of my head and these may or may not be actual facts. Also forgive me if I sound condescending or rude...I tend to be way to type A for my own good, and any perceived rudeness was not my meaning.

OJ is at the bottom of my personal list of issues in America today.