Do you think any of them have any remorse about setting a double-murderer go?
2006-08-14 16:43:15 · 11 answers · asked by John16 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Racially biased, which is why an obviously guilty person was able to beat murder charges.
2006-08-14 16:53:38 · answer #1 · answered by quarterback 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think that they looked at OJ Simpson and just could not believe that this famous Heisman Trophy Winner would ever be capable of committing murder. They were obviously star struck with very biased opinions. I believe that deep down in their hearts, the jury believes that OJ Simpson is absolutely a double murderer, but the evidence got so bungled up that they probably figured that they would never be able to convict him...I also think that some jury members were afraid of the repercussions that a conviction may have brought because the media, at the time, was quite convincing that there would be a gigantic race riot in Los Angeles. Who would want that on their conscience? The sad thing is this: the jury now has to live with their decision of letting Simpson go as a free man, whether they believed he did commit murder or felt pressured to just come to an agreement of letting him go.
2006-08-14 17:06:00 · answer #2 · answered by shortydolphin 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The jury was symphathetic to O.J. Simpson becasue of his popularity and not deciding on the issues of the case.
2006-08-14 16:48:46 · answer #3 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
They were going to let him go , regardless of what the prosecutors said or showed.
No, I don't think there is remorse. Humans can justify their actions with all forms of rationalization.
Ask Charlie Manson, society is responsible for his actions.
It was never about " Did OJ commit the murders."
"of course he did."
How often do you get to stick it to the man?
Yours: Grumpy
2006-08-14 16:57:38 · answer #4 · answered by Grumpy 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
It was reported in the L.A. Times that the city spent upwards of 9 million dollars prosecuting O.J. yet, he spent about 4.5 million on his "Dream Team". This means he got excellent representation, at cut-throat prices.
2006-08-14 19:14:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
We either have trial by jury system in this country, or we don't. Whether or not you like the outcomes is irrelevant. Can't just support the jury system when you agree with a verdict.
Let it go.
2006-08-14 17:56:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
It wasn't entirely their fault. The prosecution did a miserable job on the case.
2006-08-14 19:48:36 · answer #7 · answered by Carl 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You know, I think he did it, but the Prosecution did a p*** poor job so I think I would have said not guilty. No. 1 rule in Evidence--don't ask a question you don't already know the answer to.
2006-08-14 16:48:04 · answer #8 · answered by Salem 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
If the glove does not fit, you must acquit.
Gotta love the Cochran...such charisma he had!
2006-08-14 16:48:48 · answer #9 · answered by O'Shea 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why can't people let it go? He was acquitted! Do you go around questioning every single case that is ever acquitted?
2006-08-14 16:52:55 · answer #10 · answered by Entrepreneur 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋