Simpson could receive a maximum life sentence from Judge Jackie Glass on Friday. A pre-sentencing report recommended an 18-year sentence. On October 3, a jury convicted Simpson, 61, and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart of 12 charges, including conspiracy to commit a crime, robbery, assault and kidnapping with a deadly weapon.The question for me was whether or not the jury could render a fair verdict based only on the facts of this case and not influenced by Simpson's infamous past. Personally I don't think they did that. Now the question is can the sentencing be done fairly?
"There was overwhelming evidence at trial that Simpson's intent was to recover property that was his and only his," the lawyer argued. "The trial testimony showed Simpson's intent was to return anything that did not belong to him. This intention can be heard throughout the recordings of the Palace Station incident."I believe that. Or, at least I believe that's reasonably possible, that reasonable doubt of his guilt exists. Yet, he was convicted. Of course not everyone sees it like I do. On the blog called Football news from a chick there's a fascinating post entitled How's that karma taste OJ? The Chick doesn't have much to say in the post, of course the title of it said enough. But, in the comments you get a pretty clear idea of what she and her friends think.
What is it with all this exaggerated vengeance talk? Aren't people concerned with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and due process? In cases like this, and even more so in some of the violent capital cases we discuss, people are crying out for vengeance even before the facts are known, in the spirit of "an eye for an eye." What kind of Justice is that?
What's your opinion? I say O.J. should receive a suspended sentence and if that's not possible, then he should get the minimum. What I predict will happen is he'll get 10 years or so and a year from now it'll be overturned in the Appellate Court and he'll get out.
What do you think?