I am aware that my opinion on this topic may be controversial, however I still want to point out an aspect of the conviction that is not being discussed. It is a basic principle of criminal law that even if a person is guilty they are entitled to certain procedural and legal rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has thrown out murder convictions when the Bill of Rights has been violated, because honoring and preserving the Bill of Rights is more important than an individual.
It is impossible for me to give an informed opinion about the conviction and sentencing of Mr. O.J. Simpson for theft of sports memorabelia because I have not seen or heard the evidence completely, so it is unfair to even try to give an answer. Perhaps it is even inappropriate to comment. However, I am commenting because of what I perceive to be a serious violation of the Bill of Rights and because the hatred I hear towards him makes me puke. There is no place for emotion in sentencing by a judge. The fact that the judge who sentenced him stated that she did not consider the murder trial, simply means to me she did consider it. It is a simple fact in psychology that drunks and addicts deny their additions more vociferously than the sober. This judge is no different than the addicts in her denial.
Anyone who says this is pay-back for his acquittal on the murder charge is violating the essential principles of our Constitution and should be ashamed of themselves as they have committed treason in their statements in my viewpoint. Nothing is as important as preserving our Constitution in terms of preserving justice in the future. If we trash it and its principles we trash America and our future. If we violate our basic principles of law with Mr. Simpson, then this opens the door to violate law in every criminal trial.
What I did hear is that Mr. Simpson did not have the mens rea (criminal intent). He clearly stated he was trying to collect his “stolen” property. He had been pushed to the brink of mental delirium on this point as he had been through a very intense murder trial and then very intense civil trial where he was forced to pay 33 million dollars, as well as constantly hounded by the debt collectors. It appeared he simply cracked – with the help of others pushing him. He was so focused on trying to keep some of his property that had meaning like a wedding ring for first marriage and other things that were important to his self-esteem and family that he was not at times rational – apparently believing the property still belonged to him. He clearly loves his children and has for years been trying to hold on to what he could to pay for things for his family.
It is a basic principle of criminal law that when a person does not have the mens rea in an intent crime, which is what he is charged with, he is not guilty. I would say he is not guilty by reason of insanity. He perhaps should have been convicted of a lesser included offense such as misdemeanor trespass that does not include mens rea. However, if the property really did not belong to him anymore and he was aware of this, than he is an accessory to armed robbery even if he did not hold the gun. To me, kidnapping is a real stretch. He clearly should have had an in depth evaluation by a psychiatrist. I believe the sentence is far greater than the true offense and should be no more than 1 year, or at least 1 year in a mental institution. He should be forced to undergo mental health evaluation and counseling for an extended period of time.
I would welcome comments that educate me about the law in this case. If I am wrong in my interpretation, I would appreciate comments.