Last week, I saw in a newspaper that O.J. Simpson was put in jail in Las Vegas. O.J. Simpson is a former football star, who ended his career in 1979. His fame was mostly caused by the acquittal of the accusation of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ron Goldman, 13 years ago. That lawsuit was one of the most sensational lawsuits of the 20th century in the whole world.
I don’t understand why Simpson was not found guilty for the two murders in 1995, because there was certainly much evidence. I searched on the Internet, and I read that the lawyers of Simpson claimed that he was a victim of fraud, committed by the police: they should have placed evidence against Simpson on the crime scene. Why would they do that? At least, he was not found guilty, but three years after the murder trial, a civil court jury found Simpson liable for the deaths and ordered him to pay 33,5 million dollars in damages to the families of the victims. I find this very confusing: although, the jury decides he didn’t commit these two murders, another jury sentences him to pay damages for exactly the same murders.
Simpson and his companion, Clarence Stewart, were found guilty of conspiracy, burglary, kidnapping, robbery and assault on the third of October 2008. The deliberation of the jury lasted for more than 13 hours. The judge rejected the requests by the lawyers of Simpson and Stewart, to remain free until the sentencing on the fifth of December. The minimum penalty is 5 years in prison, but it could increase to life imprisonment.
The facts, which Simpson and Stewart were condemned for, were the robbing of sports memorabilia at a Las Vegas Hotel one year ago. Simpson, Stewart and a few accomplices stole these things while threatening two sports memorabilia dealers with guns. The defence lawyers claimed that the photographs and other memorabilia were stolen property of Simpson and that he was in his right to try to get them back. At the three-week trial, four of the accomplices testified against Simpson.
Many people think that justice has finally occurred.
My personal opinion is that justice not always occurs. Sometimes people get off, because they can pay the best lawyers of the country, because different procedures were not followed properly, etc. On the other hand, I think that if it’s not 100% certain that a person committed a crime, he shouldn’t be punished. There are enough innocent people in jail, and that’s just terrible.
Sources:
- WHITCOMB, D., O.J. Simpson's luck runs out after 13 years. Internet. Reuters, Sat Oct 4, 2008.
(http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4918HC20081004)
- Internet. (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson)
- Geluk van O.J. Simpson is na 13 jaar op. De Standaard, 6 October 2008, p. 14.
Abonneren op:
Reacties posten (Atom)
1 opmerking:
(Reaction by Ben Van Laere)
I think it is very strange that 2 jury’s have different opinions. In America the common law system works with precedents. So what the judge says is the law. And you can’t ignore the law. So when the first jury found O.J. Simpson not guilty, it is not logical that 3 years later the case is being reopened and now O.J. Simpson has to pay for the murders. The evidences were the same.
Such things are certainly not good for the confidence in the law system. The purpose of the jurisdiction is to create a clear image of what is legal and what is not legal. When people hear what happened here, it is like you can commit a crime without being punished or vice versa, being punished without doing anything wrong.
Een reactie posten