O.J. Simpson was just sentenced to a maximum of 33 years in prison. Do you think that the judge made a biased decision, that maybe it was just a little bit influenced by OJ's sordid past? I bet Ron Goldman is very happy with the verdict, but was it fair?
http://www.latimes.com/news/printeditio ... 7806.story
O.J. Simpson sentence match the crime?
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
Tunnelcat
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 13740
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:32 pm
- Location: Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.
Yeah, ol' man Freeman's a ball breaker! I liked 'Boondocks'. I wish they'd make more episodes. At least there's some more new Robot Chicken episodes starting tomorrow night.
I think that OJ's little 'getting away with murder' episode came back to haunt him. Maybe the judge thought the same thing when she passed sentence. It did seem excessive for the crime he was tried for, but......
I think that OJ's little 'getting away with murder' episode came back to haunt him. Maybe the judge thought the same thing when she passed sentence. It did seem excessive for the crime he was tried for, but......
Re:
They will take his false teeth away for sure.woodchip wrote:I wonder how the cons will cotton up to OJ in the big house.
Re:
You think so?tunnelcat wrote:I think that OJ's little 'getting away with murder' episode came back to haunt him. Maybe the judge thought the same thing when she passed sentence. It did seem excessive for the crime he was tried for, but......
Consider, Simpson (and the three others with him) were charged with 1) felonies (multiple), 2) kidnapping and 3) assault with a deadly weapon. Then a jury finds Simpson guilty of ALL charges. We're not talking about a person who committed a simple crime here. We're talking about very premeditated, fully intentional, multiple crimes of which at least two could land a person with nearly a lifetime in jail ... and you're saying his previous past may have biased the judges decision??the linked article wrote: Sept. 18: Simpson and three others are charged with felonies, including kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon.
Oct. 3, 2008: A jury convicts Simpson on all charges.
Dec. 5: Simpson is sentenced to a maximum of 33 years in prison. He will be eligible for parole in nine years.
Get some perspective.
-
shaktazuki
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:56 pm
Re:
Like what kind of perspective? Legal labels are prejudicial, and intentionally so - exactly what actions was Simpson convicted of?TechPro wrote: Consider, Simpson (and the three others with him) were charged with 1) felonies (multiple), 2) kidnapping and 3) assault with a deadly weapon. Then a jury finds Simpson guilty of ALL charges. We're not talking about a person who committed a simple crime here. We're talking about very premeditated, fully intentional, multiple crimes of which at least two could land a person with nearly a lifetime in jail ... and you're saying his previous past may have biased the judges decision??
Get some perspective.
Did Simpson touch a gun during the crime? Did he point a gun at someone? Did he shoot a gun? Did he touch someone with a gun?
Was anyone taken by force from one place to another?
Please, give us more perspective.
Re:
Did you not read what tunnelcat previously linked?shaktazuki wrote:Like what kind of perspective? Legal labels are prejudicial, and intentionally so - exactly what actions was Simpson convicted of?TechPro wrote:Get some perspective.
Did Simpson touch a gun during the crime? Did he point a gun at someone? Did he shoot a gun? Did he touch someone with a gun?
Was anyone taken by force from one place to another?
Please, give us more perspective.
I'll summarize (again)... A jury found Simpson guilty of ALL charges:
- felonies (plural)
- kidnapping
- assault with a deadly weapon.
"Assault with a deadly weapon." pretty well answers those questions. If you must have more detail, just Google. There's plenty of info out there.shaktazuki wrote:Did Simpson touch a gun during the crime? Did he point a gun at someone? Did he shoot a gun? Did he touch someone with a gun?
He was found guilty of kidnapping. Pretty well answers that, too.shaktazuki wrote:Was anyone taken by force from one place to another?
Check out this AP News on the judgement and you'll find some more info, plus the fact that the felonies were "violent" felonies (which carry harsher penalties), plus the state parole board recommended at least 18 years before being eligible for parole. The defense pushed for no less than 6 years before eligibility for parole. The judge could have sent Simpson and one other man to prison for life, but did not and allowed for parole eligibility in 7 1/2 years.
My opinion is that Simpson did not get a harsher sentence due to the earlier California incident. Instead, if the California incident had any impact on this judging, it was only because of the media attention.
Simpson did the crime, now he has to do the time.
-
shaktazuki
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:56 pm
Re:
Yep. Didn't answer the questions.TechPro wrote:Did you not read what tunnelcat previously linked?shaktazuki wrote:Like what kind of perspective? Legal labels are prejudicial, and intentionally so - exactly what actions was Simpson convicted of?TechPro wrote:Get some perspective.
Did Simpson touch a gun during the crime? Did he point a gun at someone? Did he shoot a gun? Did he touch someone with a gun?
Was anyone taken by force from one place to another?
Please, give us more perspective.
Perhaps you must clarify, because you have failed to do so, re-summarizing notwithstanding.I'll summarize (again)... A jury found Simpson guilty of ALL charges:Apparently, you have some questions about that. Perhaps we must clarify.
- felonies (plural)
- kidnapping
- assault with a deadly weapon.
No, actually, it doesn't."Assault with a deadly weapon." pretty well answers those questions.shaktazuki wrote:Did Simpson touch a gun during the crime? Did he point a gun at someone? Did he shoot a gun? Did he touch someone with a gun?
I guess you don't know.If you must have more detail, just Google. There's plenty of info out there.
No, actually, it doesn't.He was found guilty of kidnapping. Pretty well answers that, too.shaktazuki wrote:Was anyone taken by force from one place to another?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Simpson did not have to physically touch the gun in order to be charged as long as one of the members of his gang had one. If the other gang member pulled out the gun and simply waved it around he would be guilty of simple brandishing. If he instead pointed it at the victim and threatened him, everyone in the gang is guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. If the gang member touched, pistol whipped or shot the victim, then the gang members are guilty of assault and \"Battery\".
If the victim died from a gunshot, all the members of the gang are now guilty of murder. Start to get the picture?
Kidnapping can be as simple as preventing the victim from leaving. Now go read up on the case yourself shaktazuki, instead of asking other people to do your work for you.
If the victim died from a gunshot, all the members of the gang are now guilty of murder. Start to get the picture?
Kidnapping can be as simple as preventing the victim from leaving. Now go read up on the case yourself shaktazuki, instead of asking other people to do your work for you.
-
shaktazuki
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:56 pm
Re:
Is my point so obviously correct that it must be fought tooth-and-nail?woodchip wrote:Are you being deliberately obtuse? Simpson did not have to physically touch the gun in order to be charged as long as one of the members of his gang had one. If the other gang member pulled out the gun and simply waved it around he would be guilty of simple brandishing. If he instead pointed it at the victim and threatened him, everyone in the gang is guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. If the gang member touched, pistol whipped or shot the victim, then the gang members are guilty of assault and "Battery".
If the victim died from a gunshot, all the members of the gang are now guilty of murder. Start to get the picture?
Simpson denies knowing that his compatriots were armed prior to the weapon appearing. Simpson never brandished a weapon.
Let's get some "perspective." Say person A gives person B a ride somewhere. A doesn't know it, but B is going to a drug buy. After B scores his smack, A is pulled over, and due solely to the drug possession of B, which A knew nothing, A's car is forfeited.
Justice? I don't think so. Why does this principle suddenly become justice when it comes to Simpson?
Gee, would that not be a far cry from tying someone up and taking them somewhere? And what role, exactly, did Simpson play in preventing anyone from leaving? We will never know.Kidnapping can be as simple as preventing the victim from leaving.
As I said: my point is so simple that it must be fought, tooth-and-nail.Now go read up on the case yourself shaktazuki, instead of asking other people to do your work for you.
I already know as much about the case as any of you.
-
Tunnelcat
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 13740
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:32 pm
- Location: Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.
Yes, Simpson was convicted of several felonies, very serious crimes. But as Shaktazuki pointed out, Simpson's knowledge and involvement is a little murky concerning the gun use and the kidnapping charge seems to be a stretch since no one was actually moved anywhere unwillingly under restraint, but that definition is up to the authorities making the laws.
But my point was if a jury or judge had no prior knowledge of Simpson's past history, would the sentence have been more lenient? Most court trials usually prevent any prejudicial evidence from being heard during examinations. In Simpson's case, his notoriety makes that impossible to exclude in any court in the U.S.
A good example personally is a lawsuit my mother brought against a radiologist who dismissed a shadow on an X-ray as a something caused by her hair (which was way too short to even interfere in the chest area), when in actuality, it was an early lung tumor.
What makes this important is the fact that this X-ray was taken a full year before any cancer was suspected (she was having the X-ray taken for unrelated gall bladder surgery). A year later, lung cancer is diagnosed after it had spread to the lymph system.
What came out as things were investigated, this same radiologist had done the same thing to several patients in the past! He had a record of missing or dismissing things he found on film. But this information was deemed prejudicial by his lawyers and was never heard by the jury. Even though doctors at the trial testified that the year earlier X-ray did show a tumor, the jury still absolved the technician of any malpractice. The whole point of the case that was brought against this technician was that if he hadn't been in a hurry and dismissed the aberration he saw and commented on, my mother might have had an year earlier head start to stop her cancer and survive.
Would the jury have come to a different decision if they had heard the past sloppy X-ray evaluations record of this guy? I guess I'll never know. My mother died a year after the cancer was finally diagnosed. But if she'd had found out a year earlier, it might have made a difference.
But my point was if a jury or judge had no prior knowledge of Simpson's past history, would the sentence have been more lenient? Most court trials usually prevent any prejudicial evidence from being heard during examinations. In Simpson's case, his notoriety makes that impossible to exclude in any court in the U.S.
A good example personally is a lawsuit my mother brought against a radiologist who dismissed a shadow on an X-ray as a something caused by her hair (which was way too short to even interfere in the chest area), when in actuality, it was an early lung tumor.
What makes this important is the fact that this X-ray was taken a full year before any cancer was suspected (she was having the X-ray taken for unrelated gall bladder surgery). A year later, lung cancer is diagnosed after it had spread to the lymph system.
What came out as things were investigated, this same radiologist had done the same thing to several patients in the past! He had a record of missing or dismissing things he found on film. But this information was deemed prejudicial by his lawyers and was never heard by the jury. Even though doctors at the trial testified that the year earlier X-ray did show a tumor, the jury still absolved the technician of any malpractice. The whole point of the case that was brought against this technician was that if he hadn't been in a hurry and dismissed the aberration he saw and commented on, my mother might have had an year earlier head start to stop her cancer and survive.
Would the jury have come to a different decision if they had heard the past sloppy X-ray evaluations record of this guy? I guess I'll never know. My mother died a year after the cancer was finally diagnosed. But if she'd had found out a year earlier, it might have made a difference.
Truly sorry to hear about your mothers passing TC and the circumstances around it.
In OJ's case, he could of gotten 33 years to life for the 12 felonies he committed. Instead he gets 9 years and will be out on good behavior in 7. So where did he get a harsh sentence? Even OJ's lawyer thought he got a better deal than what they expected.
The real kicker tho was OJ would of gotten even a better deal if he would of accepted the plea deal. To bad he is just a big dummy who, having gotten away with murder, thought he would get away with his latest crime also.
In OJ's case, he could of gotten 33 years to life for the 12 felonies he committed. Instead he gets 9 years and will be out on good behavior in 7. So where did he get a harsh sentence? Even OJ's lawyer thought he got a better deal than what they expected.
The real kicker tho was OJ would of gotten even a better deal if he would of accepted the plea deal. To bad he is just a big dummy who, having gotten away with murder, thought he would get away with his latest crime also.
Re:
It so stupid it makes me think he did it on purpose. Maybe he feels he deserves jail.woodchip wrote: To bad he is just a big dummy who, having gotten away with murder, thought he would get away with his latest crime also.
