Well Joe, a prosecutor brought the charges, and a judge handed down the sentence, but a jury convicted him of all the charges....so if you believe justice wasn't served here, I don't think you should exempt the jury; without them Simpson is a free man. In fact I suspect it was the members of the jury who most had in mind who it was that was that they were passing judgment on.It's an example of the system being manipulated by prosecutors and a judge
Did the prosecutor bring more charges than he would have in a similar situation against OJ Smith? Maybe. But there was certainly no "misconduct" involved; what charges a prosecutor brings lies entirely within legitimate prosecutorial discretion. For a prosecutor to bring more charges than he believes he can provide sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction on would be a foolish thing for a prosecutor to do; it makes his case more complicated than it needs to be, and it tends to have a very negative affect on juries.
Did the judge hand down stiffer sentences then she would have if this had been OJ Smith? Again, maybe. But the judge acted well within her discretion as well.
The process is not over; whether Simpson was convicted of charges that weren't merited, or whether he was sentenced excessively will be reviewed by the appeals courts, which have the power to change these as they see fit.
However, personally I can tell you that I'm sure not going to lose any sleep over whether a guy who skated on a double homicide got a harsher penalty for an unrelated crime than a guy who hadn't gotten away with murder would.
Doesn't really move the needle on my Outrage Meter....


