Justice?

5 O.J. Simpson jurors disagreed with 1995 acquittal

I'm sure now that O.J. has been found guilty there are people all across the nation doing a little celebrating (I'm looking at you, white people). Now I'm not saying O.J. did, or did not do it, or that he should, or should not have been acquitted back in '95. But here's the thing, he was acquitted.

There's this thing in our justice system called double jeopardy which basically makes it illegal to try someone twice for the same crime based on the same set of facts. Therefore, once you are acquitted, unless there is new evidence or something changes... that's the verdict.

Where I am going with all this is that it seems like the jury in the most recent O.J. case may have had some bias which would have led them to try and seek revenge through a guilty verdict in this case based on his former case. Obviously it's hard to tell, and it appears O.J. definitely did something he shouldn't have, but feelings about the past murder case should have played no part in this most recent case.

I really hope the decisions of the jurors were based solely on the facts and not on any bias they may have had because as much as it would have pleased the "O.J. Haters" in this country, it is a severe perversion of our justice system.

I'm sure we all remember the racial strife that erupted after the '95 trial, so I really hope people would move past dwelling on race as an issue in criminal cases and judge solely on the facts.