Oj Guilty!

[DeeJayH]

I believe OJ killed his wife and Goldman
however, that being said, i would have voted him Not Guilty as a result of the farsical trial taht failed on an epic basis

glad to see he may finally go to jail
hopefully for the rest of his life

 

[DeeJayH]

My Way News - Emotions connect old OJ acquittal, new conviction

The attorney for the family of Ronald Goldman - who was killed along with Simpson's ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson in Los Angeles in 1995 - said he thought his hounding of Simpson for years to collect a $33.5 million wrongful death judgment pushed him to a desperate gambit to recover personal items he had lost.

"We drove him into that room to grab the sports memorabilia before we could seize the stuff," said David Cook, who represents Goldman's father, Fred. "Going to jail for beating Fred Goldman out of footballs and family mementos. Is this closure for Fred Goldman? No. Is this closure for America? Yes."

and this is just another reason why people hate lawyers
what a ****ing putz

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

Are you saying the judge ordered the jury to come back with a not guilty verdict? From what little I've read the judge made an ass of himself but I've not seen where he was responsible for the verdict.

I always thought he influenced the way it was going, plus didn't he throw out some of the evidence. Yeah, yeah, technically the jury voted on the verdict, but I was never sure about some of the hanky panky stuff. The judge used his judgment which is his right, but was it all justified, or a way to turn it OJ's way. I don't know, and it's too late now to really care about it, but I wondered about it at the time.

There was no ordering, but judge's do have some say in how it all goes, and can be intrusive.

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

The judge didn't have anything to do with him being found not guilty, it was the jury.

I thought he influenced it a bit here and there, but it's been so long now I'd have to look at old clippings, and I don't really feel like it.

 

[Jessica]

Drink apple juice because OJ will kill you!

Damn. With OJ in jail, he won't be able to persue the "real" killers of his wife and Goldman as OJ promised he would do.
:roll:

 

[TOJ]

Re: Drink apple juice because OJ will kill you!

Damn. With OJ in jail, he won't be able to persue the "real" killers of his wife and Goldman as OJ promised he would do.
:roll:

Are you always a day late?

 

[Jessica]

EEK! Trolls!

Actually I was early. This topic posted before. But then I also have a life and do stuff. Do you always troll so much?

 

[Hatuey]

The biggest reason he got off, and you all know it, is because of the mostly black jury!

Does this mean the reason he was convicted now is because of a white jury? Well I think he's got a strong case for racial bias in the jury if that's the case you're making.

 

[TBone]

He was found not guilty because the judge made sure there weren't any riots for which LA could not afford. Sad, very sad.

Sorry, I didn't agree with the verdict, but OJ was aquitted because the LA County Attorney's Office did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Johnny Cochran placed that doubt in the minds of those jurors. And, it wasn't smart for Darden to ask OJ to put the glove on.

The LA cop, Furman, did not help the case with his past, and the fact he made an illegal search by jumping the fence at OJ's residence.

Lastly, the LA CSI screwed up the case by contaminating evidence.

If their is one ounce of doubt that someone else could have done it, then your free.

 

[obvious Child]

That's the way it has been for many years, it isn't a precedent.

Doesn't mean it good.

Don't know, but since OJ isn't a "formerly clean person", it isn't relevant. Judges are expected to factor in previous crimes when sentencing.

For similar crimes yes. Someone who got convicted of drug possession and got a light sentence and then does it again would get a stricter one. Or if the person in question had a long history. OJ has one. People here are saying OJ should get more time because they think he should have got convicted in the criminal case of the double murders. That is BAD legal precedent. We should NOT add more punishment for crimes we think people should have gotten convicted for.

 

[obvious Child]

Why not? Sounds like justice and revenge. I'd bet an unknown would get an even harsher sentence.

So you'd have no problems adding more punishment to other people who you think should have gotten punished for this or that even when that is not relevant to the current trial?

Defendant A you think should have gotten convicted for crime B.
Defendant A was convicted many years later of unrelated crime C. You therefore believe we should add on the punishment from B to the punishment of C, even though defendant A was not convicted for crime B.

Anyone else see the problem here?

 

[ADK_Forever]

Does this mean the reason he was convicted now is because of a white jury? Well I think he's got a strong case for racial bias in the jury if that's the case you're making.

Actually, this time the jury came in with a verdict based on the evidence. At his murder trial, the prosecutors could have had a video, taken by 12 neighbors, of OJ slitting his wife and Goldman's throats, and narrating it as he went along, and they still would have acquitted him.

The funny thing is, in both trials there was more than enough evidence to convict anybody of those crimes.

 

[Panther]

For similar crimes yes.

Not at all. If someone has a long rap sheet for a variety of crimes, it should, and does, factor into sentencing. The crimes do not have to be for the same offense.

 

[obvious Child]

Not at all. If someone has a long rap sheet for a variety of crimes, it should, and does, factor into sentencing. The crimes do not have to be for the same offense.

Did Oj have a long rap sheet?

You know the answer to this.

You still haven't addressed the key issue:

We should NOT add more punishment for crimes we think people should have gotten convicted for.

With a long rap sheet, people serve some punishment. What is not the issue here.

 

[Panther]

If the judge is familiar with the murder case and feels that OJ committed the murders, he is free to consider that when sentencing.

 

[Tucker Case]

If the judge is familiar with the murder case and feels that OJ committed the murders, he is free to consider that when sentencing.

That would be double jeopardy and an eggregious abuse of Power. Any judge who does that should not only be disbarred, they should be jailed.

The nature of the Judge is to be objective in rendering decisions.

 

[ADK_Forever]

Did Oj have a long rap sheet?

He was indeed convicted, albeit in a civil trial, of being responsible for the deaths of his wife and Ron Goldman. This is not an insignificant fact that must be ignored.

OJ, the street punk, spoiled sports hero, psychopath is going to jail for a very, very long time. Rejoice everyone. Rejoice! :mrgreen:

 

[obvious Child]

He was indeed convicted, albeit in a civil trial, of being responsible for the deaths of his wife and Ron Goldman. This is not an insignificant fact that must be ignored.

OJ, the street punk, spoiled sports hero, psychopath is going to jail for a very, very long time. Rejoice everyone. Rejoice! :mrgreen:

The civil case isn't what most people think of.

I take it you support MM's position?

Defendant A you think should have gotten convicted for crime B.
Defendant A was convicted many years later of unrelated crime C. You therefore believe we should add on the punishment from B to the punishment of C, even though defendant A was not convicted for crime B.

How would you like it if you got an additional 10 years because the Judge thought you should have gotten convicted for a crime a decade ago when the crime you just got convicted ago was unrelated?

 

[Panther]

That would be double jeopardy and an eggregious abuse of Power. Any judge who does that should not only be disbarred, they should be jailed.

The nature of the Judge is to be objective in rendering decisions.

That's not double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is convicting him for a crime for which he was previously acquitted.

As long as the judge stays within the sentencing guidelines for the crimes he was actually convicted of, there's no problem. If you have a problem with the maximum sentence available, that's not the judge's issue.

 

[Panther]

You therefore believe we should add on the punishment from B to the punishment of C, even though defendant A was not convicted for crime B.

Nobody is talking about adding on years from another crime onto the sentence for this crime. We're only talking about giving him the maximum allowable for these crimes he was convicted of.

 

[obvious Child]

Nobody is talking about adding on years from another crime onto the sentence for this crime. We're only talking about giving him the maximum allowable for these crimes he was convicted of.

O'rly?

What would he have gotten if he hadn't committed the double murders? Hence why I asked if an every day person pulled this, what would they have gotten?

I seriously doubt it would be the maximum allowed.

And people are talking about his punishment as being revenge for getting away. Or have you ignored the res of the thread?

that's not double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is convicting him for a crime for which he was previously acquitted.

Technically that is correct, but pushing for the max allowed because of his history and a belief he should have gotten convicted is double jeopardy in the sense that you're adding punishment for a crime he wasn't convicted of.

 

[ADK_Forever]

The civil case isn't what most people think of.

Maybe. Maybe not. It's part of his criminal history and can be taken into consideration, I believe, when deciding sentencing.

I take it you support MM's position?

Defendant A you think should have gotten convicted for crime B.
Defendant A was convicted many years later of unrelated crime C. You therefore believe we should add on the punishment from B to the punishment of C, even though defendant A was not convicted for crime B.

How would you like it if you got an additional 10 years because the Judge thought you should have gotten convicted for a crime a decade ago when the crime you just got convicted ago was unrelated?

Actually, I don't agree with that scenario. However, it happens.

Oj does have a criminal record and it can be used at sentencing.

And the judge could just look at the crimes he was convicted of and sentence him based on those only. They show a depraved indifference for the law all by themselves.

Oj is going down hard and I won't shed one damn tear if he gets the max, which he deserves. However, BECAUSE of his celebrity there is that chance he will get a lighter sentence than you or I would get.

I vote for the max! :2party:

 

[obvious Child]

Maybe. Maybe not. It's part of his criminal history and can be taken into consideration, I believe, when deciding sentencing.

Then you favor punishment by double jeopardy.

Actually, I don't agree with that scenario. However, it happens.

But that is exactly what you are supporting now.

Oj does have a criminal record and it can be used at sentencing.

And the judge could just look at the crimes he was convicted of and sentence him based on those only. They show a depraved indifference for the law all by themselves.

Ah, he was CONVICTED OF. That ain't the case here.

It is still wrong to add punishment based on previous non-guilty rulings we disagree with.

 

[ADK_Forever]

Then you favor punishment by double jeopardy.

But that is exactly what you are supporting now.

Ah, he was CONVICTED OF. That ain't the case here.

It is still wrong to add punishment based on previous non-guilty rulings we disagree with.

What the hell is wrong with you? That is not what I said and I'm not going to repeat it for you. Reread what I wrote.

Do you even know what double jeopardy is and when it applies?

 

[obvious Child]

What the hell is wrong with you? That is not what I said and I'm not going to repeat it for you. Reread what I wrote.

I fully understand what you wrote. I just find what you said to be disturbing.

Do you even know what double jeopardy is and when it applies?

Yes. If OJ would NOT get the max allowable if the double murders had not taken place and people are calling for the max because of their perception that he should have gotten convicted for that, it is in effect apply the punishment of Double Jeopardy to the current punishment. DJ is convicting someone of a crime they previously were acquitted of. If we are trying to add punishment from that acquitted crime to the current one, we are in fact applying it in the punishment sense.