O.J. Simpson ... innocent?

[Necron2.0]

Interesting. Don't know how much stock to put in it, but I just read a news article that says a convicted serial killer by name of Glen Rogers is responsible for killing Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. Supposedly there's a documentary coming out about it. Rogers knew Nicole, and according to his brother he'd said he planned to "take her down" so he could steal her money. Rogers, who has a history of robbing homes as a teen, is currently in prison for a cross country killing spree.

[DarkLink]

There's a reason why we assume innocent until proven guilty, or why guilt is not determined by popular opinion. Or documentaries, for that matter.

[ElectricPaladin]

This I'll believe when I see. But, I'm definitely curious to see it.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

There's a reason why we assume innocent until proven guilty, or why guilt is not determined by popular opinion. Or documentaries, for that matter.

Everything about this sentence is win

[Psychosplodge]

I thought your system was based on plea bargaining? And the threat of draconian punishment if you don't plead guilty to a lesser offence? At least that is how it is portrayed here when people are fighting extradition to the US.

[Wildeybeast]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he always innocent? I thought the criminal trial acquitted him, which would make him innocent on the basis of the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' principle.

[ElectricPaladin]

There were some serious... irregularities in the trial. Simpson had some very talented and expensive lawyers, and the state seriously bungled both the investigation and the prosecution. Many observers have had serious doubts about his innocence, but with the close of the trial it was a done deal.

[Nabterayl]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he always innocent? I thought the criminal trial acquitted him, which would make him innocent on the basis of the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' principle.
He was acquitted at his criminal trial, and also found liable for a civil wrongful death suit. The standard of proof for American criminal trials is "beyond a reasonable doubt," while the standard of proof for wrongful death is "preponderance of the evidence," usually explained by courts as greater than 50% probability. So if you want to put those together, American courts have found that the likelihood that O.J. killed his alleged victims is greater than 50%, but a reasonable doubt still exists.

Plenty of people feel that the criminal trial was simply wrong, and point to the civil trial as "proof." But yes, legally speaking (and I mean that completely without irony), O.J. Simpson is innocent of those murders.

[Wildeybeast]

He was acquitted at his criminal trial, and also found liable for a civil wrongful death suit. The standard of proof for American criminal trials is "beyond a reasonable doubt," while the standard of proof for wrongful death is "preponderance of the evidence," usually explained by courts as greater than 50% probability. So if you want to put those together, American courts have found that the likelihood that O.J. killed his alleged victims is greater than 50%, but a reasonable doubt still exists.

Plenty of people feel that the criminal trial was simply wrong, and point to the civil trial as "proof." But yes, legally speaking (and I mean that completely without irony), O.J. Simpson is innocent of those murders.

It works exactly the same over here ('on the balance of probability' is the term we use in civil courts). I point it out because I find it worrying that we have people who are considered 'guilty' despite having never been convicted by a criminal court. The whole trial in the court of public opinion is something that concerns me greatly, largely because it doesn't seem to concern most of soceity.

[DarkLink]

That's why jury selection is so important. I've been on jury duty once, and selection took longer than the actual trial and deliberation combined.

[Nabterayl]

It concerns me too, Wildey. For courts to mean anything, people need to be willing to defer their judgments to the judicial process.