O J Simpson will be doing hard time in a Nevada prison, for a term of between 9 and 33 years. As much as many people will be surprised to hear a law and order conservative republican say it, I believe O J Simpson got screwed.
For the sake of ethics, disclosure requires that I am obsessed with the National Football League. While O J was before my time, his close friend Marcus Allen was my hero when I was 11 years old. Marcus Allen wore the Silver and Black. I want to make it clear that my love for the Oakland Raiders does not cloud my judgment on this issue.
In 1994, in the beginning, I was positive that O J was innocent. AFter all, he was not some dumb jock that was down on his luck after football. He was a successful business executive. He had it all.
Also, the idea that he would be obsessed with one woman when he was out sleeping with gorgeous women all the time did not add up. Paula Barbieri was stunning.
My thought process on this was affected by a 33 year old black man that I worked with. When asked if he thought O J did it, he said, “I don’t know.” Yet he told me, “Man, you could have every woman on the planet, and one woman can just blow your heart up. Many men will have that one woman that blows their heart up, and they go crazy.”
By the time the trial had ended, I was not completely positive he was innocent. However, I would have still acquitted based on the timelines. The prosecution had a 45 minute timeline from arriving home to committing the murders and leaving. The defense reduced the timeline to 5 minutes. Based on both presentations, I believed the defense’s timeline. One I believed the defense’s timeline, I felt that O J could not have done it because killing two people in five minutes seemed virtually impossible. Also, how does a guy do this without having a scratch on his body?
If the prosecution’s timeline was accurate, then they should have presented it better. So while that does not prove his innocence, I had enough doubt where acquittal was my decision.
Once O J was acquitted, I immediately moved on. I believed in the rule of law. Our system of justice is not perfect, but it is all we have.
Yes, I have found O J’s behavior unctuous. That horrible idea for a book he was going to write turned many people against him. However, it is quite possible that he was acting in a disgusting manner without being guilty.
I hear people say that if you believe he innocent, then you are an imbecile. Well I don’t know. I will never know. I was not there.
What I do know is that in 2008, O J got screwed.
He was sentenced to a lengthy prison term for a crime that was simply not proportional to the sentence.
What we know is that O J Simpson took a gun and brought friends of his to another man’s home to take possessions, by force if necessary.
Was the gun illegally obtained? Did he have a permit? If not, that is a crime that would involve a few months of jail time. If he legally owned the gun, then that is a non-issue.
O J did illegally enter a person’s home. Yes, that is a crime. Yet what did he do when he was there? Did he shoot anybody? Did he tie anybody up? No. He stole stuff. More importantly, that point is debatable because he was stealing back his own stuff.
I am not justifying his methods, but how many people, if they were robbed, would become frustrated when the legal system failed to get their possessions back?
Again, this is where O J went off track. He did not operate within the legal system. He took the law into his own hands. He acted like a vigilante. While vigilantism is the choice of many, actions have consequences. So yes, as flimsy as the case was, he did bring a gun to a home to steal stuff.
Now as a tough on crime law and order conservative, I would normally be fine with someebody who acted like O J did being forced to do hard time. However, that would only be fair if we did that with everybody that acts this way. O J’s crimes do not lead to legnthy prison sentences for most people. The law has to be followed consistently.
So why did O J get such a harsh sentence?
Because of 1994. People are calling this “poetic justice,” and “karma.” I am not interested in poetic justice. I want actual justice.
So for those who do not understand, it must be made crystal clear that O J Simpson was found not guilty of the 1994 murders. His 2008 robbery attempt was his first offense.
Therefore, despite being a celebrity, O J is a first time offender, not a recidivist criminal. People can scream until they are blue in the face that O J “did it,” in 1994, but that is not what the law said.
The 2008 case should not have had anything to do with 1994. There was no conviction.
I am not in any way saying that O J is a good person. What I am saying is that to convict a man in 2008 based on vengeance for 1994 is a breakdown in the system. Some say the system broke down in 1994, but that remains irrelevant.
If Orenthal James Simpson the Football Hero was Oliver John Thompson the Bus Driver, the publicity would be zero, and the 2008 case would have been based on the 2008 facts, and that alone.
The 2008 case was not about a brutal double murder in Los Angeles. It was about a botched robbery in Las Vegas, with the victims having some culpability. The victims in Los Angeles were completely innocent.
The reason why this matters is because justice cannot and should not ever be a popularity contest.
Some say that O J was acquitted in 1994 because he was likable. I freely admit that I wanted him to be innocent. In 2008, O J was simply much less likable, base don his own behavior and comments.
Yet this popularity often explains why gorgeous female schoolteachers in their twenties can engage in statutory rape with underage male students and receive much lighter sentences than an old male teacher would get for sexually assaulting a female student.
Martha Stewart went to jail because she was arrogant, and unlikable. Yet her “crime,” was simply not as serious as it was made out to be. She was not the CEO of the company she illegally traded. She was not the big fish. She was simply famous.
O J Simpson did break the law, and was convicted. A sentenc eof 18 months would be fair, and maybe as much as three years would be tough but not unreasonable.
Yet a prison sentence lasting a decade for a botched robbery is simply not consistent with how our penal system normally metes out punishment. The sentences could be longer, but at this moment they are not.
This is not about O J. It is about believing that every defendant will be treated fairly. People complained that O J had a better defense than most people would ever get in 1994. That is not his fault. This time he was given a tougher sentence than would normally be handed down.
O J Simpson should not be punishe din 2008 for a deadly event in 1994 that the law said he did not do.
O J got screwed.
I hope and pray that O J was guilty in 1994, because if he truly was innocent, then he was railroaded twice.
eric
Though I’m usually loathe to discuss “OJ,” perhaps this place would be okay to put myself through it one last time.
I noticed over the years sine the trial that an inordinate number of conservatives I know believe OJ was innocent of the ’94 murders. I’ve heard all sorts of far-fetched rationales for this rather odd belief but never any serious argument against the overwhelming volume of substantial physical evidence that was against him. The author here, for instance, brings up the “timeline” “issue.” But if you’ve ever been in a serious physical altercation, you know that it’s not like on TV and the movies. It happens very fast – just seconds. I most cases, someone just snaps from the weight of sudden emotional distress and acts out quickly, irrationally and violently, usually later regretting the haste of their decision. This is why most smart people want waiting periods on arms purchases. Five minutes is more than enough time to kill two people, especially if you are a large, physically strong, armed man.
I suspect there are several conscious and subconscious reasons conservatives are apt to believing OJ’s innocence. First, there was a loud social outcry about class when the verdict came down. Many people, including myself, were terribly upset that “the system,” once again, allowed a wealthy man to go free where a poor man would certainly have been convicted. This feeling, to conservatives, is ironically considered “class warfare.” In the Bizarro Universe of American conservatism, class warfare always eminates from the bottom up.
Another reasoning factoring into the conservative logic here is the “law and order” argument. Our good host pointed this up too. I wrote a song some years ago that I used to perform. The song was entitled “Each It And I,” and was about the folly and irony of the Authoritarianism and Libertarianism that is modern conservative political and religious philosophy. There was a line in the song that said, “and right is wrong if wrong is law and the law is always right.” To a “law and order” conservative, the law is always right because it’s the law. That’s the extent of the logic. So, if OJ was aquitted, therefore that must have been the correct outcome. But even to believe this rather simplistic assumption, you must believe that OJ was aquitted just on the merits of the case, and that’s simply well known to be not true.
Vincent Bugliosi’s “Outrage” is the must-read for anyone interested in what really happened in the ’94 trial. He points up all of the mitigating and aggravating factors in the case beyond just the strictly legal. One factor in the jury’s decision stands out the most for me: the LA riots of ’92 were still very fresh on the minds of the OJ jury. There was a genuine concern among them that should they vote for conviction, the riots would be reignited. They wanted no part of that. Race had been injected into the trial. It was ironic, of course, in that OJ represented the black community about as much as our good host, but nevertheless, OJ’s legal “Dream Team” succcessfully placed race on the center stage of the trial circus, and an impotent judge allowed it to happen. Had the trial been closed to the cameras, and had Ito reasonably kept race out of the trial, OJ may well have been convicted. This too plays into the conservative logic here: that we live in a “post-racial” society – that the jury actually overlooked race to aquit OJ rather than using race for that end. Again, in the Bizarro Universe of conservatism, racism is not racism if it works to the advantage of preferable ends.
As for this trial, again, anyone who knows anythng about criminal law, including OJ’s own lawyers, know that armed robbery, trespass, and kidnapping are serious offenses and OJ got the lightest sentence the law allows. Far from being “screwed,” OJ was lucky that the judge apparently felt that OJ’s ignorance of the legal significance of his act mitigated the crime. Also, one must consider where this happened. Las Vegas is not the wild-west, mafia-infested, saloon town it once was. It is now a vast family resort on the scale of Disney World. In order to keep the tourists coming they must be made to feel safe there. Criminal law in such places tend to reflect that interest. If OJ had committed the same crime in say Binghamton, NY, things may well have been different. But for Vegas to keep it’s reputation as a safe place to let your hair down and get wild, it must enact and enforce rigid, understood, and clear legal boundaries. It’s like S&M – it only works if you have “safe words.” In this case – safe laws.
JMJ
I think he killed Ron and Nicole, he had a history of coming after her and beating her, but wont get into that here.
He did however in this case have a chance to plea out and chose not to.
He screwed himself.
I’ve had my home raided for property by five guys with guns.
It was drugs, illegal property.
But let me tell you, its one of the scariest things I have ever been thru because you’re convinced that as a witness you’re disposable right there on the spot.
[…] Dec 2008 UPDATE: “OJ Got Screwed”. This blog and this one have the same headline, and make similar points. I haven’t followed this story but the fact […]
I’m really not clear what your argument is here, because I don’t think you’re clear, or at least honest with your readers. Either you are upset with OJ’s convictions, or his sentencing (i.e., prison terms), or both. But you’re not clear what bothers you and just how he got screwed.
I think you’re really upset with his conviction, but your complaint is with his sentencing; you suggest he be sentenced to anywhere from 18 months to three years. You readily admit he broke the law, but your problem is with the punishment meted him, and posit it is a reaction to and retribution for a past alleged crime for which he was acquitted.
The reality is the man was convicted on at least twelve charges and his sentence terms were extremely lenient, given the suggested guidelines, guidelines with which, were the defendant someone else, you would most likely be perfectly comfortable.
The reality is, you’re upset with the extent of his conviction (and on that point, I might agree with you), but that is not your argument.
Oh, and you write:
“Our system of justice is not perfect, but it is all we have.”
Why is that passable for an acquittal and not for a conviction?
I am a USC Trojan fan and loved O.J. when he played in the NFL. I too wanted to believe he was innocent of the murders but, unfortunately, I believe he did it. I also believe that due to incompetent prosecution and a District Attorney who had his eye on the governors office he was properly acquitted. The defense was able to provide enough reasonable doubt for him to be found not guilty (not the same thing as innocent). I think there was evidence that was public knowledge but not presented to the jury and evidence discovered later and used in the civil trial which might have resulted in a conviction. That doesn’t even mention the whole glove demonstration fiasco.
Okay now to the point at hand. I tend to agree with Eric that it sounds like he got a pretty hard sentence for what seemed like a minor offense. Of course that assumes he winds up serving closer to the 33 years than the 9 years. I do believe public knowledge of his other acts played a role in sentencing. I am not really sure if that is appropriate or not. I do believe a lot of factors are typically used in sentencing not necessarily only criminal convictions. It goes back to Al Capone doing life for tax evasion. Would Arnold Castle accountant from Des Moines get that sentence, probably not but that doesn’t make it unjust.
Parrot, ya know I love ya , but why are you and so many others not mentioning or aware that OJ could of pleaded out on this only recieved a couple of years ? Thats right, only 2 to 3 years.
His past played little if no role at all in his sentencing. Had he taken the deal no one would be having a discussion as to whether or not his past played a role in the sentencing
This narcissistic sociopath thinks hes invincible to the law and thought that any plea would be an unecessary admission.
I’m with Micky 1000% on this one. You guys need to look up the sentencing standards for what OJ did. He’s lucky to have gotten what he got. Armed robbery and such are very serious offences, especially in Vegas. He should have plead out. Come to think of it, I now understand why the judge considered OJ’s ignorance a mitigating factor – it wasn’t his ignorance of the significane of the crime, which he should have darn well known, but his ignorance of that fact that he, as Micky said, is a “narcissistic sociopath.” And OJ’s also lucky he didn’t do it back in the ol’ days of Vegas, or he’d have wound up under the pavement of a casino parking lot.
JMJ
Micky, Actually I was unaware that he turned down a plea deal. If he did he was stupid, but probably figured if I could skate on the first one why not on this one. Truth is I really did not follow this one at all, as I long ago put him off my radar screen so I only heard drips and drabs abotu what was happening. If you noticed my lukewarm comment earlier, I really wasn’t outraged by his sentencing only noting that it seems harsher than we usually see for a first offense. That view may be jaded by living in California.
I actually wasnt aware of the plea until the day of his sentencing.
What was blowing my mind was that this was not an issue up front. Had it been, it would of cancled out all the bloviating by the pundits who were all talking Karma and all these other things that attributed to his entencing.
If the evidence is as overwhelming as it was in this case and with audio and all the paticipants flipping on you and you challenege charges like armed robbery, kidnapping, 9 charges all together, it doesnt make the D.A. too happy to have to spend all that time and money pursuing the inevitable.
It pee’s them off big time.
The deal is if you fight this and loose were gonna give it all to you.
If you come clean and make this easier for all of us we’ll do the same for you.
Hate to say it but Jerseys point is pretty true.
In a playground like Vegas where hotel room invasion robberies are probably contemplated and carried out more than any other part of the world you have to send a message that this kind of crime is one that should recieve less tolerance than most.
[…] O J Simpson Got Screwed | THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS […]
OJ committed those murders. I used to listen to the daily audio of the court proceedings and watched some of the in-court stuff, too. Trying to make a case based on reports not being logged or filed correctly was minutia, not reasonable doubt. I’d listen to the court proceedings then at home hear the pundits talking about how great the defense was and I tried to figure out which court case they were watching because it wasn’t what I had heard. That case mentally scarred me. I had a view of our country all trying to push out the old attitudes of racism and get to a color blind society. The reaction to the acquittal of a brutal murderer made me feel like it was 1965 and I’ve never been able to reacquire the hope of my early youth. I hate OJ’s defense team with a burning rage. I worry about what I’d do if I ever saw them in person. Barry Sheck is my lifelong enemy and I won’t ever use LegalZoom no matter how convenient it is because Shapiro is associated with it. I had to get used to the idea of sharing a planet with OJ long ago just as I must share it with other evil people. He is evil incarnate willing to sacrifice good relations between entire races of people for his own freedom.
That said, I don’t care about this Las Vegas case except that he made the mistake of getting outside of his celebrity bubble and a court that would convict him when it, again, had overwhelming evidence against him. He thought it couldn’t happen because he’d gotten away before. He found out differently to my surprise. He already damaged the entire country. Whatever sentence he received is unable to bring justice to that act. 3 years or 30, I just don’t care. So, I guess perversely I kind of agree with Eric. Sentence him commensurate with the crime he was convicted of. You can’t make up for the past and you don’t want to damage the future.
What we see is more the difference between high priced lawyers vs. low priced lawyers.
In his first go-around, he had some of the best men on the planet doing what they did best.
This time around, he had a team where their case ended with ‘only’ wanting 6 years for OJ (basically throwing in the towel…). In my opinion, he’s been sentence the correct amount – he attempted to rob someone, and his used a gun. Plus the fact that his accomplices basically all spilled the beans, well, it’s hard to defend against that.
His mind was warped and for some reason he thought he wasn’t doing anything wrong. Unfortunately, that’s a dangerous thing to happen to someone, especially if he really did get away with murder, who knows how far he’d go ‘next’ time.
First it happened in a hotel room. Not a house.
Does anyone else think the charges were trumped up because it was OJ? Armed robbery yes. The other charges were a joke. Kidnapping??? Really?? Because he wouldn’t let the guys leave the hotel room? Is that what kidnapping is now days. Not allowing your victims to leave while you are robbing them is kidnapping?? That is friggin’ insulting to those that have REALLY been kidnapped and held against their will for days or weeks on end. Trespassing!?? Because presumably after they pulled the gun they were asked to leave the hotel room and didn’t? Seriously??
His buddy, under OJ’s direction, pulled a gun on 2 memorabilia dealers that possessed some of OJ’s stolen property. The one and only charge should have been armed robbery.
OJ made two big mistakes. 1. He shouldn’t have been there, he should have sent his buddies in to get his stolen stuff back. 2. If he did go, there was no need to bring a gun. Him and his buddies outnumbered the two “thiefs”.
OJ isn’t the smartest guy. He was set up. That one dirtbag that arranged the meeting knew exactly what OJ was planning. And he recorded it all. Set up like bowling pins. He must have thought he’d be able to make money off it somehow. Don’t get me wrong, OJ deserved to go to jail for this. But not for the amount of time he was sentenced. Too many people have gotten a perverse thrill out of this. The first trial OJ was famous. That may have worked in his benefit. This trial he was infamous, BIG DIFFERENCE, and that worked against him for sure. The charges would have much different against anyone but OJ.