But if he's behind bars, who's going to spend years looking for the REAL kidnapper?

I'm already eagerly awaiting his prison memoirs.

Is the black guard behind him hyperventilating? Does he think OJ was railroaded?

not really how the justice system is supposed to work.

they should exclude the names/identities of defendants during trials. or even go so far as to physically separate the jury/defendants so that race/gender/appearance is unknown.

>> ^imstellar28:
not really how the justice system is supposed to work.
they should exclude the names/identities of defendants during trials. or even go so far as to physically separate the jury/defendants so that race/gender/appearance is unknown.


That is one of the strangest opinions about the legal system I've ever read. Care to elaborate?

^therealblankman,

A person should be convicted on the evidence against them, not on the prejudice of the jurors. Whether that prejudice is based on race, gender, religion, clothes, profession, fame, or appearance. Many jurors, for example, would probably be biased if they saw a defendant who had tattoos, was unshaven, and looked pretty mean. A persons appearance (age, gender, style, race, etc.) should have no bearing on the trial, so why even include it as a variable?

Likewise for the name of the accused. Who you are should have nothing to do with your guilt or innocence. In this case, OJ is associated with murder, and no matter how impartial a juror tries to be, that prejudice is going to exist. If the defended was obscured from view and his name hidden, jurors would be forced to consider only the evidence and not whatever personal biases they may have.

When a juror doesn't know if they are convicting an old grandma, a 19 year old minority, an NFL football player, or a middle aged white guy, they would be forced to consider the evidence more carefully.

Also: when I said "not really how the justice system is supposed to work" I meant people shouldn't be punished more harshly because the juror thinks they "got away with" a previous crime.

Excellent. I wouldn't have cared if they'd tried to pin JFK's assassination on him, just as long as he finally gets punished for killing Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

You can hear his thoughts as the judge reads the first "guilty":

Oh shit, I knew I shouldn't have written that confession about the murders.

Totally besides the point; but the woman reading the verdict was really, really hot... (Damn you, CNN, for excluding obvious hotness in your reporting! I bet FOX had her on-screen in a bikini!)

How funny is it that the trial dates of his murder case and his current case were both ended on October 3rd? Neat.

Karma's a bitch.

@imstellar28-

you're right! how DARE they put OJ behind bars! THEY MUST BE RACIST!!

on a similar note to what you said, i heard a story of one guy charged with bank robbery. Name: Rob Banks. he was tried under an alias to keep from inadvertently swaying the jury.

>> ^imstellar28:
^therealblankman,
A person should be convicted on the evidence against them, not on the prejudice of the jurors. Whether that prejudice is based on race, gender, religion, clothes, profession, fame, or appearance. Many jurors, for example, would probably be biased if they saw a defendant who had tattoos, was unshaven, and looked pretty mean. A persons appearance (age, gender, style, race, etc.) should have no bearing on the trial, so why even include it as a variable?
Likewise for the name of the accused. Who you are should have nothing to do with your guilt or innocence. In this case, OJ is associated with murder, and no matter how impartial a juror tries to be, that prejudice is going to exist. If the defended was obscured from view and his name hidden, jurors would be forced to consider only the evidence and not whatever personal biases they may have.
When a juror doesn't know if they are convicting an old grandma, a 19 year old minority, an NFL football player, or a middle aged white guy, they would be forced to consider the evidence more carefully.
Also: when I said "not really how the justice system is supposed to work" I meant people shouldn't be punished more harshly because the juror thinks they "got away with" a previous crime.


It is kind of hard to orginize a public trial with all those conditions

I am a fan of justice, but perfect justice can never be had, just have to get as close as we can.

Nordberg

*gay

Adding video to channels (Gay) - requested by berticus.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Stingray.

rasch187 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because rasch187's points are already fully charged.