&
Advertise Here with Today.com
 

Dec 05 2008

33 years? Isn’t that overkill? No pun intended.

Published by BobO at 11:08 pm under Uncategorized Edit This

So, I guess that murderer O.J. Simpson finally got what was coming to him.  The jury in Vegas found Simpson and his accomplice guilty of armed robbery.  They say he could get anywhere from 9 to 33 years in prison.  If he does get the full 33 years - doesn’t that seem to be excessive for armed robbery?  Especially when given the fact that he was stealing back the stuff that was stolen from him?

If he does get the full sentence, would it be because of the fact that he got off scott free for the Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson murders and now a different jury is trying to exact justice on him now that should have been wielded oh so many years ago?

I know they say he’s supposed to be innocent because a jury of his peers found him not guilty - but - they didn’t get to hear all the testimony that we did.  There is no doubt in my mind that he killed his wife and Mr. Goldman.  However, I still don’t understand the stiff penalty considering he was just taking back what was his.

This gives me mixed feelings only because I’d hate to find out that if someone stole something from me - then I go and take it back - I could find myself in prison.  How is that justice?

Possibly-related Articles:                                        (auto-generated)
Advertise Here with Today.com

7 Responses to “33 years? Isn’t that overkill? No pun intended.”

  1. Paulyon 06 Dec 2008 at 2:55 am edit this

    Hi CG - I saw your post later after I put up my post. It would appear that you and I are somewhat in agreement. While I do firmly believe that he literally got away with murder 12 or so years ago - this sentence given out today is definitely not proportionate to the crime. I think that judge is thinking she’s making up for a past jury’s mistake…which is not her job.

  2. skwguitaron 06 Dec 2008 at 4:16 am edit this

    15 years… I understand the punishment. He went in with other people and held the people hostage there by gunpoint. Wasn’t there something about a guy getting a heart-attack there too? It was an incredibly stupid thing to do for a high-profile person such as himself. The way I see it, he got what was coming to him.

  3. politicalanimalon 06 Dec 2008 at 4:15 pm edit this

    I agree with guitarman and am planning to write up a post about the sentence tonight. It’s not extreme at all, given what he actually did in Vegas. He should just be thankful that he enjoyed 13 years of freedom he clearly didn’t deserve.

    Anyone wanna bet there’s going to be a plea for Obama to pardon him sometime in the next four-to-eight years?

  4. xzchiefon 08 Dec 2008 at 10:13 pm edit this

    This smacks of Al Capone going to jail for tax evasion after never being convicted of any violent crimes.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here