I'm sure most of you remember the infamous OJ Simpson trial. This most recent news, OJ signing up for a book entitled "If I did it" wherein he describes how he WOULD have killed his wife and friend if he HAD done the murders, is particularly surprising. Clearly this is born out of a desire to make some money -- OJ's lawyers bills have been expensive over the years. But what else does it tell us? Is this just OJ mocking us? The principle of Double Jeopardy seems to be a good one in our nation's judicial system... but situations like this sure test our patience. Any thoughts on the whole concept of someone speaking in detail about crimes they "didn't" commit? Is double jeopardy a good institution in our legal system? Should there be any exceptions?
You can see a brief news story on the OJ book
Here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Pap is a wise, well spoken, old man. Don't know much about double jeporday, just what i've seen in the movie.
i am glad, however, that the publishing company decided not to publish his book. I think OJ is a dirt bag who showed if you have money in america, you can get away with anything. he is either trying to make a buck and/or mock the system by attempting to publish this book. I think the act in itself is not ethical at all. it is a total disregard to the families of those who died. i would like to think if i were truely innocent of a crime like that, the last thing i would want to do is draw attention back to myself.
I am not bothered in the least by OJ's latest acts. He is simply out to gain more attention and try to make some money while he is at it. I tend to let things like this not bother me because it isn't worth the worry. I just shrug my shoulders at him and say you lucky inconsiderate greedy B@$&#^%.
I believe OJ is guilty, and his acts should not go unpunished. However, it is too late for punishment now. Double Jeopardy is a system we need to uphold so that someone is not convicted of the same crime multiple times. Thats not fair. However, in this case, it makes us wish we didn't have the standard. He did lose a great deal in the civil case so our justice system didn't fail all together. I blame the investigation teams and prosecutors for this black mark on our justice system. They should have had their act together and not allowed tampering of evidence and a mickey mouse investigation to occur.
Various authors before me have pointed out that double jeopardy allows for another trial if new evidence or circumstances were found out. Supposing that OJ did do it, and that this book really was a confession, would it not be good to see it? Might it not bring up new evidence against OJ or point to something the investigatino teams missed? I agree that the people prosecuting him messed up, but i also agree that we do not know for sure that he did do it. This seems to be one of those cases where something might be immoral or painful but not illegal. Sure the book might piss some people off or mock the trial system, but free speech allows that in our country. Effectively OJ has been censored and i don't think that is a good pattern for any country.
In principle, double jeapordy is a good concept. However, if it becomes obvious someone really did committ the crime, either through new evidence or admission, they need to be punished. Although civil courts exist, financial reprecussions do not fit most crimes, like murder or rape. If I put myself in the family member's position, I'd hope for a new trial. Additionally, without a new trial, the US system could actually cause an increase in crime. If people knew the person committed the crime and could not be tried, they could become vigillanties and take justice into their own hands.
Post a Comment