Double Jeopardy

O.J.Simpson, opinions, Diallo, trials, wrongful death, Charles Barkley, L.A. Police, Rodney King, New York Police, double jeopardy, wrongful death settlements        

          It’s safe to say that I will probably be taking a hit on this one, but willingly so, I accept.  I am from Philadelphia,
a city in which outspoken athletes are not hard to come by.  I remember when Charles Barkley was with
the Sixers.  He did so much damage off-court that it made one’s
head spin.  Yet, when it came time to
play basketball, there was no one better. 
Eventually, Allen Iverson became “Barkley
re-incarnated”.  His off-court antics
were second to none, but, when he got back on the court – look out!  Tyrell Owens, when with the Eagles
(or with anyone else, for that matter), was always in the public eye, and, I
don’t mean in a good way.  Allow the man
to play football, and he will outrun, outscore, well – quite simply –
out-everything and everyone.  They were
three villains off-court, raising eyebrows from every facet of the
community.  Three athletes: all
unstoppable when playing their respective sport.  I was (and still am) a fan of all three.  I have not been particularly fond of their
behavior when “off duty”, but, I let
it all ride because they know their sport and know how to score, and,
subsequently, know how to make the crowd roar. 
That’s not why I think that I’d take a hit for this commentary.  They are not the outcasts whose causes I
represent.  Like the aforementioned
athletes, I may not approve of the antics, but, I follow, with much helplessness,
the plight of O. J. Simpson.

O. J.
Simpson stood trial for murder and was acquitted.  Let me state that once more: O. J.
Simpson stood trial for murder and
was acquitted.  The possibility that
you may think he was guilty is a moot point.  The thought that you may believe that the
trial was a joke is virtually inconsequential. 
Through all of the arguments that you may offer, there is one fact that
must remain absolutely clear: O. J. Simpson stood trial for murder
and was acquitted.  To hold court for him
again, for the same offenses, would be no less than double jeopardy.  I followed
the facts, and a lot (not most) of the trial, and as far as I could tell, he
was not guilty.  That is my opinion, and,
there’s not much that can be done to change that.  The biggest problem that I have with this
scenario is the sense of “double jeopardy” that has taken place.  After the trial was over, and we were given a
chance to breathe, he was then tried for wrongful
death.  That is the part that
confounds me.  If a person is declared not guilty of murder in a court of law,
how can you then say “Pay for the deaths
anyway”?

One of the first
arguments that I will probably be presented with is the case of the Los Angeles police officers who beat up
on Rodney
King.  They were cleared of the
charges, but, later, Rodney King was awarded a large sum
of money from the city, by way of compensation. 
The same argument may apply in the Amadou Diallo situation in New York.  The officers involved were cleared of the
charges, but Amadou Diallo’s family was ‘compensated’
by the state of New York.  I supposed you would say that the same thing
applies with O. J. Simpson, but, I would beg to differ.  Consider these questions:

In the case of
Amadou Diallo, do you think that the officers involved, either singly
or collectively, simply reached into their pockets and handed over the $3.0 million
dollar compensation?

In the case of Rodney
King, do you actually think that either of the officers involved simply
reached into their bank accounts and wrote a check for $3.8 million to pay for Mr.
King’s compensation?

 

The answer to
both questions is a resounding “no”.  The
money came from the cities of New York
and Los Angeles, respectively.  In the case of O. J. Simpson, the court
has placed the burden of compensation solely on O. J. Simpson.  Again, the courts have basically said “You’ve been acquitted of the charges, but
we want you to pay nonetheless.”

Hit me again,
because, furthermore, I think that he has every right to write a book on
whatever topic that he wants.  If you can
find a publisher who will publish it, so be it. 
He has every right to use the money from the sales of that book to help
pay for the expense that he has inherited from the state of California. Unfortunately, even though a
publisher actually agreed to present the book to the public, we, the public, seem
to think that it’s an outrage.   As for his recent antics and subsequent
arrests concerning the reacquisition
of his own personal property, he has that right, as well.  I will, however, grant one the fact that he
has gone about it in the wrong way.

 

Like most other
people, I am highly opinionated, thus the reason for my blog page.  It has been said that “What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away”.  Meaning: there is no right or wrong when it
comes to opinions.  Therefore, I ask that
before you comment, and before you accuse me of playing the fool, please read more of my commentaries so that you
at least understand from whence I come. 
As always, your comments and replies are most welcome.  Peace.