• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

O.J. was released today.

Do you think it was right to parole OJ or not?

  • I think it was right to parole him.

    Votes: 9 81.8%

  • I think it was wrong to parole him.

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Total voters
    11
MaggieD

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,664
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Basically, do you think he should have been granted parole or not?

I think he’s served enough time. What he did was arrogant and wrong. But his sentence was disproportionate wto his crime.
 
Its good. Now he can dedicate his time to finding the real killer of Ron and Nicole.
 
He should have been released due to the time served on the crime he was convicted of. Most people that want to see him still in jail want to see him punished for the crimes he was not convicted of.
 
MaggieD said:
Basically, do you think he should have been granted parole or not?

I think he’s served enough time. What he did was arrogant and wrong. But his sentence was disproportionate wto his crime.
Click to expand...

I think he should be granted parole. He is still a piece of ****, though.
 
VanceMack said:
He should have been released due to the time served on the crime he was convicted of. Most people that want to see him still in jail want to see him punished for the crimes he was not convicted of.
Click to expand...

Except the reason he was not convicted was because of juror fraud so I can see a reason for keeping a killer in prison
 
Crovax said:
Except the reason he was not convicted was because of juror fraud so I can see a reason for keeping a killer in prison
Click to expand...

While I would like to see OJ die in prison, that's an emotional response, not a rational one. The rational side of me wants the rule of law. I don't know of any way to get around double jeprody, so there's no chance he'll be held truly accountable for murder. I just have to hope he'll die friendless and alone.
 
bearpoker said:
While I would like to see OJ die in prison, that's an emotional response, not a rational one. The rational side of me wants the rule of law. I don't know of any way to get around double jeprody, so there's no chance he'll be held truly accountable for murder. I just have to hope he'll die friendless and alone.
Click to expand...

I think the OJ scenario provides us with a great philosophical question. Does true justice follow the rule of law and if not which should we follow when they don't align?
 
Crovax said:
Except the reason he was not convicted was because of juror fraud so I can see a reason for keeping a killer in prison
Click to expand...

If juror fraud actually could be proven then his case can be retried but since the evidence doesnt support this claim its more of people wanting something to happen, which is to disregard the rules and laws of this country.
 
Crovax said:
I think the OJ scenario provides us with a great philosophical question. Does true justice follow the rule of law and if not which should we follow when they don't align?
Click to expand...

The law is an imperfect attempt to provide justice. Just because it falls short sometimes doesn't mean you can just chuck it out the window. Who gets to decide that the law had failed and extrajudicial justice is appropriate? That's a recipe for anarchy and chaos, which are far more dangerous than an ageing ex-football player.
 
Crovax said:
Except the reason he was not convicted was because of juror fraud so I can see a reason for keeping a killer in prison
Click to expand...

The law doesn’t allow for using one crime to right a suspected wrong for another. No love for the guy...but the law is the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jdog21 said:
If juror fraud actually could be proven then his case can be retried but since the evidence doesnt support this claim its more of people wanting something to happen, which is to disregard the rules and laws of this country.
Click to expand...

I dont think there is a mechanism for it when jurors commit fraud of their own volition with no tangible benefits
 
MaggieD said:
Basically, do you think he should have been granted parole or not?

I think he’s served enough time. What he did was arrogant and wrong. But his sentence was disproportionate wto his crime.
Click to expand...

And ladies: He's single and ready to mingle!
 
He's out.....good!

Now I hope he gets run over by a golf cart while investigating Nicole's murder.
 
Crovax said:
I dont think there is a mechanism for it when jurors commit fraud of their own volition with no tangible benefits
Click to expand...

You are suggesting that they jurors consciously ignored evidence and set a guilty man go. Thats just wishful thinking and again no evidence supports your hypothesis.
 
jdog21 said:
You are suggesting that they jurors consciously ignored evidence and set a guilty man go. Thats just wishful thinking and again no evidence supports your hypothesis.
Click to expand...

This is the transcript from an interview with Carrie Bess a juror on the OJ trial

Interviewer: Do you think there are members of the jury that voted to acquit O.J. because of Rodney King?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: You do?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: How many of you do you think felt that way?
Bess: Oh, probably 90 percent of them.
Interviewer: 90 percent? Did you feel that way?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: That was payback.
Bess: Uh-huh.
Click to expand...

It's was in the documentary OJ made in America, it won an oscar
 
Crovax said:
This is the transcript from an interview with Carrie Bess a juror on the OJ trial



It's was in the documentary OJ made in America, it won an oscar
Click to expand...
Was s/he paid to say that? Would that persons testimony hold up in court if perjury charges were brought against them? If so I believe attorney generals would have prosecuted.
 
Simpson can live quite comfortably on his $25,000 a month NFL pension which is immune from civil judgments.

I hope to never see or hear about him again.
 
jdog21 said:
Was s/he paid to say that? Would that persons testimony hold up in court if perjury charges were brought against them? If so I believe attorney generals would have prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier I don't think it falls under an applicable laws and if it did I'd bet the statute of limitations has passed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom