Orenthal James Simpson was acquitted of a gruesome double murder.
Then he was found “civilly liable” for the deaths of his former wife and her friend.
And then he decided to take back some memorabilia and was convicted of robbery and assault. He’s been in prison for several years and is now on the verge of getting paroled for that crime.
An amazing debate is taking place: Does he deserve parole or should he be kept locked up because of the acquittal of that previous crime? Give me a break! O.J. Simpson’s parole status should be determined solely on the basis of the time he has served for the crime for which he was convicted. Period. End of argument.
Do not misunderstand me. I don’t give a damn about Simpson. I don’t care if he is denied parole or is granted his freedom after serving a substantial portion of the sentence he was given for the crime.
I also happen to be one of millions of Americans who believes he got away with murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in 1994. The law, though, saw it differently. After months of testimony and televised drama, that Los Angeles County jury decided in hours that he didn’t do the crime.
The system functioned as the law intended for it to function. Did it produce the desired outcome? Not in my view. But that’s just me.
That case is done. The other one for which he has spent time in the Nevada prison is still playing out — and that’s the case upon which the parole board should determine whether he walks out or stays locked up in The Joint.
Look at it this way, too. If he is released, he can resume his search for Ron and Nicole’s “real killers.” Oh, wait …