Monday, October 6, 2008

Oh, You Won't See Him No More

That's what Fat Clemenza said to Sonny the day after he shot Pauly in the Jersey Meadowlands and said the unforgettable and oft-quoted, "Leave the gun, take the cannoli."

Well, that's what I say about O.J. You won't see him no more. The L.A. Times reports that the jurors claimed to not be prejudiced because of what happened 13 years ago.

"We've been painted as an all-white jury that hates O.J.," said Dora Pettit, one of seven jurors at the news conference. "That's not true."

Pettit said she prayed for Simpson throughout the trial and said it was "unfortunate that he's facing the same charges as somebody who robbed a bank."

That was unfortunate indeed. The way I see it there was more than enough reasonable doubt to go around in the case. According to Dora Pettit, it's the evil Nevada law that's to blame, certainly not that they were prejudiced.

What amazes me is how some people who tend to extol the benefits of law and order, of holding people accountable, of Lady Justice blindly doing her thing, seem to think it's good that O.J. is convicted in this case even if it's a miscarriage of justice in order to make up for the wrong acquittal. Although I'd never condone their actions, I think I'd have more respect for a lynch mob.

What's your opinion? Did O.J. pay in this trial for the murder many think he committed 14 years ago? Is it good for the system to operate like that? Wouldn't a justice system that can do that be open to much worse abuses?

Let us know what you think.

1 comment:

  1. That's the beauty of the jury system. Attorneys can challenge jurors' appointment if they think they'll be prejudiced and the judge can instruct them in the letter of the law and what can and cannot be taken into consideration when deciding a verdict. Once they get in that room to deliberate, all bets are off.

    If the judge decides that there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, or that the verdict is not within the letter of the law, he or she can overrule it. That's what they're there for. That's why they get to sit higher than everyone else in the room.

    One can only assume that the judge felt the jury had based their verdict on the evidence presented and so let it stand. That is, after all, what Ito did in the murder case despite overwhelming evidence of O.J.'s guilt.

    If the jurors went through the usual selection process and claim that they were not prejudiced by his previous acquittal, and arrive at a verdict with which the sitting judge agrees, we have to take them at their word and accept that justice was done. And if the defense disagrees, that's why we have the appeals process.