do stupid, criminal things and expect that those individuals should not face
justice for those mistakes? I’ve heard several people call the O. J. Simpson sentence, “excessive.” But, the judge-- while
known for tough sentences-- was only following Nevada law which requires a
mandatory minimum 15-year sentence for two of the charges for which Simpson was
convicted. Is the sentence excessive for the crime or is it just excessive because it applies to OJ Simpson?
I've also heard people say O. J. couldn't get a fair trial anywhere in America based on what happened in his 1994 double murder trial in which he was accused of butchering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. Certainly, everyone in America knows who O. J. is and has an opinion about the trial 14 years ago, but what was unfair about this most recent armed robbery and kidnapping trial? It’s hard to think he was treated unfairly this time around when so much of the evidence against him included recordings of his voice planning the “raid”-- for lack
of a better word-- and images of him and his co-defendants carrying out those plans. Members of the jury have said they felt prosecutors had a weak case until the incriminating audio and video tapes were presented. The recordings compelled the jurors to convict, according to those who spoke with reporters. So, what was so unfair?
I would appear that O. J. Simpson got what he had coming to him based on the crime committed.
Oh, Good Evening!
No comments:
Post a Comment