The Truth About The Original OJ Case

[onesandzeros]

Laws do not really exist, we just think they do.

[Adebisi]

[ QUOTE ]
And yes I believe that anyone who kills in an enraged state, even if that indicates a personality problem, should be dealt somewhat less harshly than a cold blooded premeditated murder. So do you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend towards the opposite point of view in many circumstances. I think a person that lacks self-control and can fly off the handle into a murderous rage is generally more dangerous to society and deserving of a lengthy (if not permanent) incarceration than a cold-blooded killer who had a reason for commiting the crime.

I think most people would agree that when a premeditated murder takes place, there is usually a pretty good reason for it, such as a betrayal by a friend/spouse/business associate, a non-imminent threat of serious harm, revenge for a prior bad act, etc.

I think as a general rule, the victim is more likely to have knowingly/willingly "brought it on themself" to some extent or otherwise have seriously provoked their murderer in a premeditated murder.

I would dole out murder punishments like this:

Category 1, Most Severe: Premeditated murder for no apparent reason (i.e. serial killings, planned spree killings like Columbine, VA Tech, D.C. snipers)

Category 2, Very Severe: Non-premeditated murder for no apparent reason (i.e. random thrill killings, the killer just "snaps" without any real provocation)

Category 3, Medium Severity: Non-premeditated murder for a reason (i.e. jealous rages, provocative behavior by the victim immediately before the killing)

Category 4, Least Severe: Premeditated murder for a reason (i.e. revenge for a serious wrong, victim posed a threat to the general well-being of the killer, killings relating to drug trafficking or other gang wars)

The sentence for the last two categories would heavily depend on how "good" a reason the murderer had for the killing, and there would be signicant overlap in the sentences imposed for category 3 and category 4 killings. Same thing between categories 1 and 2 based on how irrational the killing was. Category 1 and category 2 killings, however, would ALWAYS be punished more severely than category 3 and category 4.

IMO, very irrational (but not rising to level of insane) people present far more of a danger to the general public than rational people. In order for a person to become a victim of a rational killer, that person would have to somehow involve themself in the killer's affairs in a negative way. In order for a person to become a victim of an irrational killer, they would merely have to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[adios]

OJ was a rich defendent and thus the "Dream Team" was more than willing to take the case. I can't believe that DS didn't even mention the fact that OJ could afford these lawyers and thus got their best efforts. They weren't concerned about OJ being charged with the wrong crime. IMO anyone who believes that money wasn't the overriding factor by a wide margin in the lawyers defending OJ is being moronic. I understand that Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld do a lot of pro bono work in the Innocense Project but I'm sure they took on the role in this case for the money and nothing else. Johnny Cochran, F. Lee Bailey, and Robert Shapiro were certainly in it for the money IMO.

[hitch1978]

Something that's been on mind allot since I atsrted reading these threads is the money spent on the defence.

Just as idea, what do people think of the following (Purely as a first draught of an idea) - The prosecution and defence cases must have the same funds at their disposal.

- Both parties state their desired financial input.
- The party with the highest sum has his/her financial input capped to whatever the poorer side can afford.
- A third party can make the poorer side's funds up if the richer side is willing to pay the added costs if they lose.
- If extra funds are sought from the third party, those funds are sought in damages should the party using those funds lose.
- Extra funds are only available on these terms should the party accepting those funds agree to those terms.
- If the party potentially accepting those funds refuses (as they believe they will be better of, in terms of the case if the opponents fund is capped) the other party can insist on the funds being used and they are partially liable for the debt sould the party taking those funds lose.

I know there are LOADS of problems with it, but as an idea what do you think?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Something that's been on mind allot since I atsrted reading these threads is the money spent on the defence.

Just as idea, what do people think of the following (Purely as a first draught of an idea) - The prosecution and defence cases must have the same funds at their disposal.

- Both parties state their desired financial input.
- The party with the highest sum has his/her financial input capped to whatever the poorer side can afford.
- A third party can make the poorer side's funds up if the richer side is willing to pay the added costs if they lose.
- If extra funds are sought from the third party, those funds are sought in damages should the party using those funds lose.
- Extra funds are only available on these terms should the party accepting those funds agree to those terms.
- If the party potentially accepting those funds refuses (as they believe they will be better of, in terms of the case if the opponents fund is capped) the other party can insist on the funds being used and they are partially liable for the debt sould the party taking those funds lose.

I know there are LOADS of problems with it, but as an idea what do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't think it's feasible in civil or criminal cases but I'm not lawyer. In criminal cases the funds available to the state are basically going to be much higher most of the time. Not sure I'd want to change that.

My brother once practiced law and sued people stated many times that civil cases should be about money. I realize that entities like insurance companies have more resources available to them for the most part but it seems that most cases should probably be settled anyway out of court. The cases that do go to trial seem to be for big bucks almost all the time so not sure that it's need there.

[andyfox]

The idea that the lawyers felt it would be morally wrong for OJ to be convicted of first degree murder when it was really second degree strains credulity. The idea that F. Lee Bailey has any scruples at all also strains credulity to the breaking point.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that the lawyers felt it would be morally wrong for OJ to be convicted of first degree murder when it was really second degree strains credulity. The idea that F. Lee Bailey has any scruples at all also strains credulity to the breaking point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know many defense lawyers who will not help guilty bad people get off. The money these guys were paid would not have made up for them losing a slam dunk case. They almost had to know that he was overcharged or that evidence was planted and /or mishandled or that the prosecution was willing to accept a lesser charge in a plea bargain, or something along those lines.