now you guys just think about this before shouting off an answer, now i know some of you hate him because hes black...which theres nothing wrong with but did he really kill his wife? and if so, they why the hell did he get away with it????
2007-09-23 07:44:33 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
no
2007-09-23 07:47:30 · answer #1 · answered by Batak 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
"guilty" is a word with many meanings. O.J. was found not guilty of the criminal charges so that the law considers him not guilty. However, there possibly could be criminal charges of perjury and obstruction of justice based on OJ's book. I'm not sure if a criminal charge can be opened up upon proof of perjury by the criminal defendant (probably not, but it might be something for prosecutors to consider).
From a civil standpoint, O.J. was found liable based on the jury finding that he murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and friend Ronald Goldman. This is a finding of "guilty" in a civil context. We do not use the term "guilty" when talking about a civil judgment. The terms instead is "liable" or "civil liabilility".
A more important thing to understand about the nation's judicial system is that a judge or jury finding of guilt or liability does not mean that the event (i.e., the killing of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman by O.J.) actually occurred as determined by the trier of fact. Judges and juries are not infallible. They do make errors. Relevant evidence is often excluded and falsified or mistaken evidence is often admitted. Perhaps 10%-50% or more of the inmates on death row were convicted of a killing they did not commit. Yet, under law, they are "guilty" when in fact some of these convicted persons are not guilty at all.
Thus, the word "guilty" is something to use with care, knowing that it is applied regularly to persons who are not guilty at all.
97% of people accused of felonies wind up pleading "guilty" even though many of them (I estimate between 50%-80%) would have not been found guilty at a fair trial, with adequate investigative funds and adequate funding of counsel. The reason they plead guilty is that they are offered a short sentence if they plead guilty (say 6 months to 2 years) and if they decide to go to trial, where they have almost no hope at all in winning, according to the statistics, they will receive a sentence of 15-30 years or longer. This of course is an outrage, but you should understand that this is why persons charged with crimes plead guilty, because they can't take the chance that they would be able to overcome the advantages of the prosecutor who is able to win 90%-95% of the time, because citizens still believe in truth and justice and their elected representatives - after all, why would a prosecutor ever lie about evidence or hide evidence or use his office to try to get re-elected or become entitled to vesting of pension rights? Interestingly, the defendants with the most money to spend on their defense ($100,000,000 or more) tend to lose and get the longest jail sentences. What chance do you have if you are a defendant and have no money? If you are interested in plea bargaining, see my website at www.lawmall.com/pleabarg
2007-09-23 15:09:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, he was found guilty in a civil proceding and was ordered to pay millions to the Goldman and Brown families. But he has managed to protect his money.
He got away with it because the jury was made up of blacks from a poor neighborhood who felt intimidated enough to acquit him. They totally ignored the evidence. Also, the judge was incompetent and couldn't control the court room.
2007-09-23 14:54:17 · answer #3 · answered by notyou311 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Legally,they couldn't prove him guilty. Literally,there is no doubt in my mind he did it. There was too much physical evidence for him not to have done it. It was just a big screw up with the investigation and DNA/science part of the evidence. I don't care what color he is, I would same the same thing if he was blue.
2007-09-23 14:56:11 · answer #4 · answered by justme 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe that he did it and of course he was found not guilty, but what I keep thinking about is that even though OJ was found not guilty, how is the investigation coming along into finding the real killer is?
2007-09-23 17:01:01 · answer #5 · answered by J A 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court, and found civilly liable under a lesser standard.
So, assuming both juries are correct -- probably.
2007-09-23 14:48:40 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He got away with it because his counsel created reasonable doubt. Its how the judicial system works!
2007-09-23 14:53:24 · answer #7 · answered by kitkatish1962 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, he did it. He got away with it because he is black.
After the trial, I watched an interview with one of the jurors, a black woman. She said, "We saw our Brother in pain and we knew we had to help."
It was racial identity that got jury votes in his favor.
2007-09-23 14:47:55 · answer #8 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
dude, you never heard about his attorneys ""playing the race card"??? jurors were polled afterwards, they were all black and they say they voted "not guilty" because of all the blacks who were found guilty and were really innocent going back to the days of slavery!...THEY ADMITTED THAT THEY DID THAT!! THEY WERE FREAKING PROUD OF IT!
2007-09-23 14:50:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
He got away with it because he is black and no other reason.
2007-09-23 14:48:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
he was found not guilty. i believe that verdict was incorrect.
2007-09-23 14:48:35 · answer #11 · answered by snarkysmug 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋