The media’s influence over the masses of society is great. With every passing generation, the media’s ability to access and relay information to the general public with seemingly the greatest of ease continues to impress. Given the expanse of time that has passed since the 1990s, the media, even more-so to this day, shapes our lives, our perceptions, and influences our opinions greatly. The 1990s served an important decade in our country’s young history. Since the mid-1800s, and even before that time, our country has experienced its share of societal issues, from racism to sexism, to religious bigotry, and police brutality, to name a few. In 1994 a very high-profile case was introduced to the American public, as former NFL star Orenthal James (O.J.) Simpson was charged in the double-homicide of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend and alleged lover, Ronald Goldman (Neuendorf, 2000). The O.J. Simpson trial, as it became known, opened on January 24, 1995 and concluded October 3 the same year. Over the span of the trial, the prosecution team presented 72 witnesses including friends and family of Nicole, friends of O.J., and a 9-1-1 dispatcher. Given the trial’s notable and well-known defendant, those involved in the trial gained lifetime fame. To this day I can still recall the names Judge Lance Ito, Marcia Clark (Deputy District Attorney), and Simpson’s defense counsel, “The Dream Team,” which consisted of a number of high-profile attorneys, most notably Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran. I chose this case because it left a lasting impression in my memory, as well as a lasting impression in our nation’s memory. There have been many high-profile cases over the years, but this case was not predicted to end the way it di... ... middle of paper ... ... 31(1), 5-27. Boggess, S., & Bound, J. (1997). Did Criminal Activity Increase during the 1980s? Comparisons across Data Sources. Social Science Quarterly (University Of Texas Press), 78(3), 725-739. Groeneveld, E. (2010). “Join the Knitting Revolution”: Third-Wave Feminist Magazines and the Politics of Domesticity. Canadian Review Of American Studies, 40(2), 259-277. Matheson, V. A., & Baade, R. A. (2004). Race and Riots: A Note on the Economic Impact of the Rodney King Riots. Urban Studies (Routledge), 41(13), 2691-2696 Neuendorf, K. A., Atkin, D., Jeffres, L. W., Loszak, T., & Williams, A. (2000). Explorations of the Simpson trial "racial divide". The Harvard Journal of Communications, 11, 247-266. Sánchez, G. J. (1997). Face the Nation: Race, Immigration, and the Rise of Nativism in Late Twentieth Century America. International Migration Review, 31(4), 1009-1030.
The double murder case of O.J. Simpson is one that will live on forever and one that will never be forgotten. On June 12, 1994 Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were found dead at Nicole’s home in Los Angeles. According to Doug Linder, it was “most likely a single male that came through the back entrance of Nicole Brown Simpson’s condominium” (Linder). Since they did not have any other suspects they went right to Orenthal James Simpson who was Nicole Simpson’s ex-husband. Law enforcement had seen him as suspicious and they had charged him with both of the murders. The case had gone to trial and it was the prosecutor’s job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was guilty and that he had done the crime. Simpson had what was called
After a lengthy two hundred and fifty-two-day trial “not guilty” were the words that left the world in shock. O.J Simpson was your typical golden boy. He had it all, the nice car, the football career, and his kids. Unfortunately, this all came to an end when two bodies came to be spotted deceased in Nicole Browns front yard and was a gruesome sight. O. J’s ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman both found with brutal stab marks. Unfortunately, all his glory days now brought to an end, he went from playing on the field to begging for his freedom when becoming the main suspect of their murders. Since this trial has not only altered the way Americans viewed celebrities, but it also racially divided society,
It took the jury four hours to determine this fact. Since this case was highly publicized, this case made many Americans question the quality of the criminal justice system since everything was pointing to Simpson however he was considered not guilty. A whole year and twenty days pass before we hear the next thing in this case. A civil trial meets to see if Simpson should be held financially liable for what happened at his house. It took the jury forty-one days to hear all one hundred and one witnesses’ statements and they came to an agreement the Simpson did kill Nicole and Ronald with oppression and malice. After the civil trial meet the verdict became once again widely debated amongst the legal experts and the public
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
The evidence discovered during the investigation suggested to the police that OJ Simpson may have had something to do with this murder and they obtained an arrest warrant. The investigators believed that they “knew” OJ Simpson committed the murders. His lawyers and him were informed of the arrest warrant and agreed to a specified time when OJ would turn himself into authorities. Investigators are later admonished, by the defense, on how they handled the crime scene.
Cohen, L. E. & Felson, M. (1979). “Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach,” American Sociological Review 44:588-608.
There is no way to measure how everyday people of the jury compartmentalize the information given to them. By disregarding information, does it work in favor of justice or does it highlight a forbidden topic. Using a jury trial and the disregarding of evidence played a key role in the OJ Simpson case that began in 1994 (Jasanoff: 714). Just after a year of his acquittal of the first case, he became the defendant of a civil suit placed by the relatives of the victims. When asking juries to disregard statements and evidence can change their decision-making abilities, especially if the evidence directly links the alleged criminal to the crime as it did arguably in OJ Simpson’s case. During this trial, the defense tried to highlight and find errors in the Los Angeles Police Department’s procedures for collective and transporting evidence (Jasanoff: 715). The evidence, which was once connected to the trial, was now inspected to establish both its validity and reliability. The outside influence of the evidence played a role in the decision, which included the credentials of the lab and their procedures. In sum, the jury’s roles in legal proceedings emphasize the influence of the everyday nature in the law. In these cases, the jury has much more control on the case rather than the law controlling their
The tension between the black community and the Los Angeles Police Department caused eyes to be on the true intentions of the police on the case. Only three years before the Simpson trial, Rodney King had a trial of his own. King was pulled over by four police officers then beat. The four police officers were found not guilty. The colored community was enraged. “After almost a week of rioting, the city was still rebuilding when the Simpson trial began” (Bates). The fact that a wide
Perea, Juan. Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States. New York or London: New York University Press, 1997. Print.
...lled believed the verdict was right (“The Trial”). Another reason this trial has been important to the American judicial system and overall history is because although there was much evidence pointing to Simpson for committing the murder, he did have some of the best attorneys in the business and that showed the American public that possibly money or even celebrity status could get you out of murder. People began to think that if money has something to do with whether or not you’re guilty of something, poverty will ensure you injustice (“OJ”). The case brought into question fundamental tenets of U.S. law as the presumption of innocence, the adversarial trial, and the right to trial by jury (Kronenwetter). Many people believe that you can not understand the law system until you understand the O.J Simpson trial, and it is a trial that will always be remembered (“OJ”).
The issue of pretrial publicity is a maze of overlapping attentions and interwoven interests. Lawyers decry pretrial publicity while simultaneously raising their own career stock and hourly fee by accumulating more if it. The media both perpetrate and comment on the frenzy -- newspapers and television stations generate the publicity in the first place and then actively comment on the likely effect that the coverage will have on the trial. When a high profile case is brought to trial, many media outlets report not only on the details of the trial, but also details about the persons involved, in particular the defendant. Much of the information reported regarding the case is released before the trial starts. Furthermore, media outlets may not only report facts, but also present the information in a way that projects the culpability of the defendant. By allowing pretrial publicity of court cases, potential jurors are given information that could sway their opinion of the defendant even before the trial begins, and how they interpret the evidence given during the trial. The right of a criminal defendant to receive a fair trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The right of the press, print and electronic media, to publish information about the defendant and the alleged criminal acts is guaranteed by the First Amendment. These two constitutional safeguards come into conflict when pretrial publicity threatens to deprive the defendant of an impartial jury. However, there is a compromise between these two Constitutional rights, which would allow for the selection of an impartial jury and allow the media to report on the details of the case. The media should only be able to report information once the trial has...
There was a decline in crime during the 1990s. Our country enjoyed seven years of declining crime for the period 1991-98, the most recent data available. During this period crime declined by 22% and violent crime by 25%. These are welcome developments, particularly following the surge of crime and violence of the late 1980s. This decline occurred during a time when the national prison population has increased substantially, rising from 789,60 in 1991 to 1,252,830, a 59% rise in just seven years and a 47% increase in the rate of incarceration, taking into account changes in the national population (Mauer 21-24).
OJ Simpson, one of football’s most legendary players, was admired and extolled by many sports-lovers from across the nation. From being selected as the number one player in the 1969 draft to being named NFL’s Player of the Year three times, he led a life of success and fame (CNN.com). Yet behind this renowned MVP, there stood a dark side. In June of 1994, Simpson was arrested for allegedly murdering his wife, Nicole Simpson, and family friend, Ronald Goldman. Simpson pleaded not guilty and eventually won his trial, but his reputation and status were far from recovery. In September of 2007, Simpson was once again arrested, this time on grounds of robbery and kidnapping sports memorabilia. Simpson is a fine example to the age old argument that celebrities should not be given special treatment in the court room because at the end of the day, no matter now powerful they might be, they’ve committed a crime and should pay for their wrongdoing.
Nativism or anti-immigrant sentiment grew rapidly in the 1920’s. This is mainly because of the huge number of immigrants who were entering the United States at the time. The growing nativism was caused by a feeling amongst some people that immigrants were taking opportunities meant ...
MacDonald, H. (2010, January 4). A crime theory demolished. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870359090504574638024055735590.ht