Community Chat

[Noel7]

---

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

That criminal was sentenced to thirty-three years, THIRTY-THREE YEARS for his robbery, and he only served nine years. NINE YEARS!

That is a travesty.

He should have served every single day of those thirty-three years in prison.

And it's naive to think that his sentence had nothing to do with Ron and Nichole.

---

Then you don't understand the legalities involved. 

[Noel7]

---

@seaBreeze wrote:

I was not IMPRESSED with the parole commission today .... in their opening statement, the head of the commission stated that O.J. was 90 years old .... mistakenly she then corrected herself.   Was this Board swayed by his celebrity, I hope not?  Or even competent?

Later, an open microphone was picking up a conversation with OJ as he was waiting for the Board to convene after 30 minutes ...  O.J. still possesses an air of entitlement, and is only sorry he got caught.

---

They have to go over certain points of qualification.  It seems they don't have the wiggle room they used to have.

[SharkE]

Those Goldmans really think they're gonna collect 5 million with that civil suit?  OJ won't be able to pass gas without one of the Goldman's trying to get paid out of it

[Greeneyedlady21]

I believe the parole board said today that in Nevada you can reduce your sentence for such crimes by at least 50 percent for good behavior. So maybe it can be even more than that.

OJ was a good boy in prison, he gave all the details today. He kept other prisoners in line and was even commissioner of the prison softball league!

[Plaid Pants2]

Ask the families of Ron and Nichole how they feel knowing that the person who brutally murdered their loved ones in cold blood, is soon to be released to walk around, free, in public, when their dead loved ones can't.

Ask them if they felt that he "did his time".

Ask them if they felt that "justice was served".

Many, many, MANY people felt that the thirty-three year sentence was to make up for the travesty of the murder trial.

Thirty-three years should mean exactly that.

Thirty-three years, and not one second before.

[riley1]

As I posted in another thread, this is the legal justice system. It applies only to this crime for which he was charged. He did serve his time and by all accounts was fine in prison.

They cannot use passed crimes to base their decision as he was acquitted.

This is the way it works, whether we like it or not.

[Bri36]

He should have never been acquitted of those murders in the first place.  That's the real travesty of justice.   

I don't know how those people can sleep at night knowing they let a murderer walk out of there...

[YorkieonmyPillow]

I think it will be hard for him to outside of prison. Probably because he knows he deserves to be in there for the rest of his life..........

He'll probably outlive us all!

"Too onery to die," as they say.

[Moonchilde]

---

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

That criminal was sentenced to thirty-three years, THIRTY-THREE YEARS for his robbery, and he only served nine years. NINE YEARS!

That is a travesty.

He should have served every single day of those thirty-three years in prison.

And it's naive to think that his sentence had nothing to do with Ron and Nichole.

---

Everyone knows, whatever state you live in and even with Federal charges, the amount of time one is sentenced to is not very often the time served.  Simpson cannot (and should not) be a sole exception to something either lenient OR harsh. He can't be punished "more" than others with the same crime. He hasn't been punished "less."

As much as the vast majority (myself included) believe he was guilty of murder, that ship will never sail again legally. Most people have been glad that he has served a full 9 years (his full minimum sentence) because they believe he was guilty of murder and got away with it.

But most people, whether they agree with it or like it or not, understand how sentencing has to work within the law. The punishment must fit the individual crime the person was charged with and went to trial for, and nothing else, and he cannot be given a stiffer sentence just because he's believed to have done other crimes he's been acquitted of. If that would be the case for him, it would need to be the case for every criminal - some of whom were wrongly convicted, have been rehabilitated, or have shown true remorse. None of these things are true of Simpson.