Even I think OJ Simpson was at least responsible for the deaths of Ron Goldman and Nichole Simpson. However as a US citizen he has the right to the presumption of innocence. Could you judge him fairly, or would you make him pay for what you may think he did earlier? Before you answer these are the same rights that are afforded each of us. Don't answer if he is guilty or not on this charge yet .... you have not heard all of the evidence.
2007-11-27 14:01:17 · 8 answers · asked by Big Will 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Ok, I'm the odd man out again. I do NOT believe that O.J. killed Ron or Nichole. On this newest case of his, I do not know, nor have I formed a opinion as of yet. Could I treat him fairly? Yes, I could. The evidence must be there and be allowed in the court.
2007-11-27 15:01:08 · answer #1 · answered by carmeliasue 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, as a juror, you are not required to follow the judges command to go by the preponderance of the evidence or the "beyond a reasonable doubt" clause. OJ had a right to a fair trial and he got it. But the evidence was sufficient to convict.
There are no repercussions for rendering a particular verdict in a case. If you think someone is guilty as charged (and I don't know anyone who proclaims OJ's innocence seriously)then vote guilty. In OJ's case I would have voted guilty and I would have hoped Mark Fuhrman got fired. The evidence was overwhelming based simply on whose blood was where, the trail of blood drops matching OJ's cut finger, and the Bronco being bloody.
2007-11-27 22:13:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would be able to judge him fairly, on the evidence in this case on this charge, even though I believe he did murder his wife and Ron Goldman.
In fact, I would probably be extra careful to look closely at the state's evidence, because I know there is a real anti-OJ sentiment and that it is hard for him to get a fair hearing now after all that has happened.
Just because you are paranoid (or a double murderer) does not mean they aren't out to get you.
2007-11-27 22:08:06 · answer #3 · answered by raichasays 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I could judge him fairly. In fact, I did. I watched the trials, which were completely televised so many people DID hear all the evidence, and I judged him guilty. Incompetent prosecution is the only reason he got away with it. To further indicate this likely truth, he lost the civil case.
2007-11-27 22:10:04 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What's scary is that people CONFESS to murdering someone, to the police when they are arrested, and STILL HAVE to have a fair trial.... They HAVE to be presumed innocent until a jury finds them guilty.... How many walk away on a loophole? It's the peoples burden to prove them guilty... wowsa.... I guess it's the best system in the world, huh?
2007-11-27 22:09:25 · answer #5 · answered by A W 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I take it you are referring to the current case. No, I think I would make a bad juror for him because I'm still ticked off at him for eluding justice the first time. At the time of his arrest I had no opinion one way or another, until I read one thing. When he was told his wife was dead, he did not ask what happened. Who wouldn't ask what happened? Somebody who already knew.
2007-11-27 22:11:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
everyone in the world KNOWS he's guilty. Yes. I could judge him fairly. GUILTY AS CHARGED
2007-11-27 22:09:21 · answer #7 · answered by Mary Jo W 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would have to have undesputeable proof.
2007-11-27 22:15:18 · answer #8 · answered by Tara 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋