Worst act ever committed by a track athlete?

ddtyd, esq. wrote:

no me me me wrote:

Why do you hope he stays there for life? [That's] ridiculous and hateful.

Do you have any proof that he's guilty or that he did it? Who did a better investigation, you or the court? If they didn't put him in prison, then there's no legitimate reason why he should be in prison.

Here's a decent summary of why he's in prison:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_robbery_case

As you suggest, the court doubtless did a foolproof investigation of the robbery case, finding him guilty on all 12 counts. That's the "legitimate reason why he should be in prison."

As to "proof that he's guilty or that he did it"--presumably referring to the earlier murder cases--my "proof" is that a civil court found him liable for wrongful death--i.e. he killed two people.

As a member of multiple juries in criminal and civil cases, and later a lawyer, I could talk about the differences between criminal and civil trials, satisfactory levels of proof, reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence, etc.--but I'll spare you (and everyone else).

The prosecution in the murder (criminal) case was badly flawed--as someone memorably put it, "the cops framed a guilty man"--and O.J. was, probably correctly*, declared not guilty.

But "not guilty" does not mean "proven innocent"--far from it. The civil jury found him liable. That *is* a form of proof--after all, they must have done a better "investigation" than you or I could have, right?--and enough proof for me to call him a murderer.

And enough for me to be glad that he's behind bars (for whatever reason), and to hope that his thug ass doesn't get out from behind bars during his lifetime, so he can't hurt anyone else.

I still think the "Naked Gun" movies were funny, though, and that he did a good job in them.

*"Correctly" in terms of how the judicial system works, not as a statement of factuality.

ddtyd, esq. wrote:

no me me me wrote:

Why do you hope he stays there for life? [That's] ridiculous and hateful.

Do you have any proof that he's guilty or that he did it? Who did a better investigation, you or the court? If they didn't put him in prison, then there's no legitimate reason why he should be in prison.

Here's a decent summary of why he's in prison:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_robbery_case

As you suggest, the court doubtless did a foolproof investigation of the robbery case, finding him guilty on all 12 counts. That's the "legitimate reason why he should be in prison."

As to "proof that he's guilty or that he did it"--presumably referring to the earlier murder cases--my "proof" is that a civil court found him liable for wrongful death--i.e. he killed two people.

As a member of multiple juries in criminal and civil cases, and later a lawyer, I could talk about the differences between criminal and civil trials, satisfactory levels of proof, reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence, etc.--but I'll spare you (and everyone else).

The prosecution in the murder (criminal) case was badly flawed--as someone memorably put it, "the cops framed a guilty man"--and O.J. was, probably correctly*, declared not guilty.

But "not guilty" does not mean "proven innocent"--far from it. The civil jury found him liable. That *is* a form of proof--after all, they must have done a better "investigation" than you or I could have, right?--and enough proof for me to call him a murderer.

And enough for me to be glad that he's behind bars (for whatever reason), and to hope that his thug ass doesn't get out from behind bars during his lifetime, so he can't hurt anyone else.

I still think the "Naked Gun" movies were funny, though, and that he did a good job in them.

*"Correctly" in terms of how the judicial system works, not as a statement of factuality.