OJ Sentenced
 

I wasn't going to start a thread about this, but it just keeps getting amusing:
From here.

When I saw the news (same site) right after the sentencing, the headline was saying that he would serve "at least six years" - which was the minimum mandatory sentence. Later, it was saying that he would serve 15 years (I don't remember the specific verbiage). Now it is saying "O.J. Simpson Sentenced To As Much As 33 Years."

I anticipate that by the time I go to bed tonight, it will be up to about 147 years.
______________

Separately (but on the same subject) I was listening to the live feed from the courtroom. The defense attorneys were making their typical procedural motions. The judge would listen politely, allow the prosecution to respond and then very simply say "motion denied" in a voice like she was saying "no thank you" to an offer of a refill on her iced tea at a restaurant. It made me laugh.

Which might be only just long enough.

I would be fine with trading a lesser sentence for putting him in with the general population :evil:

Oooh! I like how you think!

Of course, had he been convicted in CA, I had a secret wish the state would somehow find a way to make him share space with Charlie Manson.

If the sentence is commensurate with the crimes he is convicted for and the general sentencing in that area then I don't care.

But, as much as I think he got away with two murders, you don't get to apply compensatory sentencing to other crimes.

I agree with Alex.

I was listening to the sentencing and she touched on that subject. Regardless of opinions about the first acquittal (and I think he got away with two murders), he cannot be sentenced for it now.

The sentencing probably reads like a Goofy "how-to play football" schematic. ;)

I don't care how they did it, I'm just glad he's finally going to be put away.

Still, I can't help feeling that the sentence is based more on his past than the facts in this case.

I can't say I like that in a legal decision.

99.9999999% of the time, I agree with you. This is the one time where I do not have a problem with it (if it is true).

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....

Hey RStar: go look at at the first post in this thread.

oops, my bad....

I read the article before this thread, and it looked different for some reason..

Well, great minds think alike, right Kevy!? ;)

The Nicole/Goldman murders will put him away for life. The most he can serve is 33 years. He will be eligible for parole in 9 years. If parole in Nevada works the way parole in California does, one of the criterion to be considered is risk of future dangerousness to the community. The due process standard of evidence needed to support findings of unsuitability is very slim--far less than the preponderance of the evidence standard by which he lost his civil case. So, the sentence for the current crimes may have been by the book, but the parole hearings will certainly be about the murders.

But if he was found not guilty of the murders (in criminal court), can they consider them? Can the civil judgement be considered?

It seems to me that they would consider "has he been rehabilitated from the act of violent crimes" at a parol hearing. And while they may be unable to consider the murders that he was found not guilty on, the parol board members may still have them in the back of their minds.

But that's just a guess, as I have no inside information about such matters.

as long as Im not seeing his "I got away with murder" grinning face out playing golf and figuring more ways to dodge the civil judgement against him, any time in the hole for him is a good thing.

besides, at 61, any sentence of substance pretty effectively burns him for life.
so yeah, as one who still sees him as guilty, Im pretty satisfied with it

Now I have Alice's Restaurant running through my head.

"Kid; have you been rehabilitated?"

Sure, I did my time on the "Group W Bench"......

:D