OJ Simpson Trial
By bobmnu
@bobmnu (8157)
United States
September 8, 2008 3:29pm CST
This is not about OJ's Guilt or innocence but how far should a prosecutor go to get a conviction. In this case we have six people who committed a crime and two are standing trial while four are testifying against them. I don't know what kind of deal the four got but it seems to me that to go easy on a majority to convict one or two does not make sense to me.
What say you?
1 person likes this
1 response
@metalhalo (599)
• United States
8 Sep 08
It doesn't seem fair but if they think they can get better charges on the top two guys with the other four people's testimonies then that's what they'll go with. They're always about making deals, it makes their job easier and gives them more evidence to work with.
@metalhalo (599)
• United States
9 Sep 08
Me personally? None. But my family has been in law enforcement since before I was even born. Chief of police, Detectives and one District Attorney. I've gathered my opinions from overhearing theirs.
Their main objective of course is to catch all the bad guys but that's not always the case. If they can get witnesses and evidence on the "ring leader" then they see that as a bigger win.
I don't agree with giving any criminals deals..if they've done the crime then they should do the time. The deals are used to nab the bigger badder guys.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
11 Sep 08
In this case why do they need to make deals with four of the six? I think it makes their case look weak if they need to deal with most of the other members of the gang. I agree getting the top guy is important but so is making sure that all the criminals pay for their crime.
