What exactly makes this one different? That you know about it?

I believe that he got away with two murders.

From a legal standpoint, my argument makes no sense. It is even against my own moral code. But this time, I am making an exception.

I was armed robbery right? Doesn't that warrant the sentance?

And kidnapping. He could have received up to life in prison for the crimes he was convicted of. Although since he has no prior convictions (that I am aware of), the likelihood of getting life was nil.

Well, I believe he got away with 2 murders in the state of California. I, for one, and glad to see this small bit of justice and am thrilled that I do not have to pay for his incarceration.

His accomplice received a very similar sentence.

But wouldn't really suck if such a sentence (even if subconsciously) was a result of the past actions of your accomplice?

I haven't paid enough attention to know if the sentence is reasonable (and I'm sure the judge, if it isn't, took care to make sure it could be argued that it is) so I'm not saying it isn't. But regardless of whether it is, I've heard a lot of sentiment (not just here) that this sentence is the opportunity to correct the error of the murder trial. Which is a horrible sentiment (even if emotionally satisfying).

The one thing I was thinking is that the defense lawyers didn't seem to have refined speeches for the judge. If I were her, I'd be annoyed by their babbling. I find it amusing that OJ is still very much an actor. I didn't buy his "I was just stupid" speech. Yeah, you were on tape, you dinglecheese.

:evil:

Yeah, form the AOL news feed this was a bit funny:

Now there's our legal system at work for you....