MB, like you I have a big concern to be sure that OJ was convicted only for his activities associated with attempting to steal back what he thought was his stuff. TO have in mind at all, anything else is not justice. It is revenge.
Mind you, I am cheering. We watched the murder trial in utter disbelief over here. A lot of stuff that was thrown out - would never have been thrown out here. Over here, it's the spirit of the law and not just the letter of the law, that is considered.
But the murder trial was ten years ago.
A lot of things have happened since the murder trial, to damage OJ's reputation. Much of what has happened has been his own doing. When he was on trial ten years ago, this was all shockingly new. It was so hard to believe that someone like OJ could be guilty; he had no record, he had no reputation other than evidence we heard for the first time as part of the trial. Benefit of doubt.
Since then, OJ has done a few things wrong legally, as well as morally. The book was the final straw for a lot of people.
So consider the man's reputation at the time he went into the casino with his new friends and their weapons. This time he did not have the unblemished reputation to protect him; these are the issues considered when charges are laid. The kidnapping - whether or not to apply that charge would depend on a lot of factors. They are separate charges which could be thrown out if OJ's defence could in any way demonstrate that they were applied frivolously. However, if the charges could be applied legally, then they need to be properly tried through the judicial system. That is what should determine if the charges of kidnapping apply.
Sentencing will be interesting - I would expect a guilty verdict in this case to only get a lenient sentence on the kidnapping, if it really was not such a big deal. But just what did the victims go through in the fifteen minutes it took for the robbery? What was the intent? What was said? What was done?
Every case should stand on its own merit and not take anything from previous cases. But when a repeat offender is up for consideration, then the record is also on the table. A crime is considered more serious when it is premeditated, when it is particularly aggressive and where it is believed that the person was not acting out of character.
Ten years ago, OJ was not a repeat offender. Since then, he has made a number of mistakes including refusing to pay a court-ordered restitution, and then the legal fight over the book which really does read like a confession (no matter how carefully it was worded). By this time, the man's character has been publicly demonstrated NOT just by media discussion, but by OJ's own words and actions.
I think the best phrase to describe this is "hoist by his own petard".
Marg
