O.J. Simpson is found guilty on all charges including kidnapping. How much time should he serve in prison?
Submitted 59 days ago by HauliFavoriteEmbedOptions
O.J. Simpson is found guilty on all charges including kidnapping. How much time should he serve in prison?(Please click one)
The penalty for the kidnapping is generally assessed at 15 years to life. The reason I stated lesser terms is to elicit opinions as to whether such a prison term is to harsh for a man of 61 years of age.
If this is is first criminal conviction maybe it is too harsh, but if he has been found guilty of other criminal offenses and the court has reason to believe he's a PFO (Persistent felony offender) then it is more likely the court will want to throw the book at him.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. The only factor his age should have is if it affected his mental abilities. 15 years sounds about right for what he has been convicted of.
My guess is that they'll give him a total of 20 years since the judge can not use any bias caused by his past in the sentencing process. He'll probably see the light of day before his death.
Probably true. And if he does get 20 years, it's my guess there's close to a 50-50 chance he'll be freed on good behavior, or maybe some kind of pardon, in less than nine years, maybe less than five.
There are some people who think he was totally set up despite what the civil trial declared.
[1 point]59 days ago by ChipmonkReplyEdited 59 days ago by Chipmonk
Somebody told me L.A. "law" was afraid of another Rodney King so to avoid possible riots they went easy on him the first time, but now that almost everyone thinks he's a scumbag nobody is worried about riots anymore so they'll probably lock him up and throw away the key (at least until the ACLU goes and gets another one made).
I highly doubt that was even a consideration in his murder trial. He was found not guilty by a jury of peers. I think the state wanted very much to find him guilty. The burden of proof resides with the state to get a guilty verdict that is beyond a reasonable doubt and they failed to do that. That is not the case in a civil trial and that's why he lost that one. He was guilty. In this trial, there was no reasonable doubt so he's off to the slammer!
[1 point]58 days ago by HauliReplyEdited 58 days ago by Hauli
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Loading...
The penalty for the kidnapping is generally assessed at 15 years to life. The reason I stated lesser terms is to elicit opinions as to whether such a prison term is to harsh for a man of 61 years of age.
If this is is first criminal conviction maybe it is too harsh, but if he has been found guilty of other criminal offenses and the court has reason to believe he's a PFO (Persistent felony offender) then it is more likely the court will want to throw the book at him.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. The only factor his age should have is if it affected his mental abilities. 15 years sounds about right for what he has been convicted of.
life long imprisonment will be the better way to change his character..
My guess is that they'll give him a total of 20 years since the judge can not use any bias caused by his past in the sentencing process. He'll probably see the light of day before his death.
Probably true. And if he does get 20 years, it's my guess there's close to a 50-50 chance he'll be freed on good behavior, or maybe some kind of pardon, in less than nine years, maybe less than five.
There are some people who think he was totally set up despite what the civil trial declared.
This wouldn't have happened if they had locked him up the first time.
Except for the fact that he was found not guilty.
That whole trial was made for tv fiasco, he should have been in the can since then.
Somebody told me L.A. "law" was afraid of another Rodney King so to avoid possible riots they went easy on him the first time, but now that almost everyone thinks he's a scumbag nobody is worried about riots anymore so they'll probably lock him up and throw away the key (at least until the ACLU goes and gets another one made).
I highly doubt that was even a consideration in his murder trial. He was found not guilty by a jury of peers. I think the state wanted very much to find him guilty. The burden of proof resides with the state to get a guilty verdict that is beyond a reasonable doubt and they failed to do that. That is not the case in a civil trial and that's why he lost that one. He was guilty. In this trial, there was no reasonable doubt so he's off to the slammer!
I don't think he was guilty of this one. He was convicted for murder.