Through The Looking Glass: OJ Faces Up To 33 Years In Prison

Recently, OJ Simpson was found guilty of 12 criminal charges, including armed robbery and kidnapping, committed in a failed attempt to retrieve sports memorabilia from two collectibles dealers in a Las Vegas hotel room.  Sixty-one-year-old Simpson faces up to 33 years in prison, and will be eligible for parole after nine years. 

Simpson claimed that he was merely taking back his belongings that had been stolen, and his lawyer urged the court to consider the minimum sentence of six years because Simpson does not have a criminal record. 

Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass, however, focused on the violent and premeditated nature of the crimes, along with the overwhelming evidence against Simpson.  Glass expressed dismay with Simpson during the trial, accusing him of “arrogance or ignorance or both,” and doubling his bail after he violated his release terms.   

Glass has been both heralded for her “tough on crime” approach, as well as criticized for sacrificing defendants’ constitutional rights in the name of courtroom efficiency.  Specifically, critics allege that Glass has dismissed challenges to her rulings and has failed to furnish defense attorneys with complete reports of defendants with mental troubles.  The judge is currently under review by the Nevada Supreme Court for preventing defense attorneys from entering their clients’ psychological evaluations.

Although there has been some speculation that the harsh sentence was in part motivated by a desire to punish Simpson for infamously beating murder charges 13 years ago, so far, few (besides Simpson’s lawyer) have objected to the sentence.  Also, there have not been widespread accusations that his conviction was racially tainted.  Under law, Simpson’s acquittals for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman, should not be used against him in subsequent trials. 

Judges can, however, impose harsher sentences based on a felon’s prior record or for bad behavior.  Here, Simpson’s courtroom behavior did not constitute legal grounds for imposing a harsher sentence.  Yet, unless it is proven that Glass’ sentence was driven by improper motive, or that she violated another guideline, Simpson’s sentence will stand.  Is this justice?  I suppose the appeals court will have the chance to determine that. . . .  Recent reports indicate that nearly half of the jury thought Simpson should have been convicted for the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, and Simpson’s lawyer has stated that jury bias will form the basis of their appeal.