"Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. In the matter of People of the State of California vs Orenthal James Simpson, case number BA097211. We, the jury, in the above-entitled action, find the Defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, not guilty of the crime of murder in violation of penal code section 187(A), a felony, upon Nicole Brown Simpson, a human being, as charged in Count I of the information.” - The verdict from the invigorating trial of The People vs O.J Simpson. This trial and case changed the world’s view on how celebrities and first class citizens are treated in the judicial system not only then, but also to this day. Celebrities are being treated better than regular citizens in our judicial system because they have the …show more content…
For example, the verdict about Michael Jackson mistreating or molesting his child “fell apart,” according to Cheri Baldacchino. This was because the witnesses in prosecution were not credible whatsoever, not because it was Michael Jackson the “King of Pop.” The witnesses wanted him to be prosecuted because his fame and fortune had made him a target. Blair Berk, a lawyer in Los Angeles, states that “The quality of justice that someone like Michael Jackson received is solely about money. Having a lawyer who not only demands a fair trial but has the resources to assure it has become a precious thing in the United States. We really do, unfortunately, now have two systems of justice, but it has nothing to do with how famous you are." Another example is that celebrities are mistreated by the media. Being a celebrity in this age is very difficult. They are scrutinized and judged after every “ill advised” decision they make, and really just can not get away from the paparazzi. Media misinterprets the lives of these people that have worked hard to get where they are. They view them as higher up on the totem pole, and because they are they should be held more accountable and should not make dumb mistakes like they make. With that, many believe celebrities are treated harder in court than regular citizens. Ruth Gearin says “ I think they get special …show more content…
Eight men out. New York: Henry Holt, 1987. Print. "Black Sox Scandal." Dictionary of American History.encyclopedia.com Web. 03 Mar. 2017. "Black Sox Scandal." Black Sox Scandal. Web. 03 Mar. 2017. The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "Black Sox Scandal." Encyclopædia Britannica. Solomon, Alan. "The Black Sox." Chicagotribune.com. 15 Aug. 2008. Web. 03 Mar. 2017. "Celebrities Should And Do Receive The Same Treatment When Charged With A Crime." Celebrities Should And Do Receive The Same Treatment When Charged With A Crime - Essay - 1691 Words. Web. 28 Mar. 2017. Gonchar, Michael. "Do Rich People Get Off Easier When They Break the Law?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 18 Dec. 2013. Web. 17 Mar. 2017. Grace, Francie. "Do Celebrities Get Fair Trials?" CBS News. CBS Interactive, 16 Jan. 2004. Web. 17 Mar. 2017. "Legal System Treats Celebs Differently, Dershowitz Says." ABC News. ABC News Network, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 17 Mar. 2017. Varon, Jamie. "If You Don't Think How We Treat Celebrities Is A Problem Then You're Not Paying Attention." Thought Catalog. Thought Catalog, 01 Sept. 2014. Web. 17 Mar. 2017. "Why Do Celebrities Get Special Treatment in Court?" ChicagoNow Is Full of Win. Web. 17 Mar.
Ward, G., Farrell, A., & Rousseau, D. (2009). Does racial balance in workforce representation yield equal justice? Race relations of sentencing in federal court organizations. Law & Society Review, 43(4), 757-806. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5893.2009.00388.x
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
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.
Throughout the years many people have put their feelings about the United States Justice system into poems or songs. We have heard various artist refer to the system as being very corrupt and about public officials abusing their power. In 2002, Lauryn Hill released the MTV Unplugged 2.0 album. On this album, there were twenty-one songs. One of the songs was called “The Mystery of Iniquity”. This song featured many verses that reflect the corruption in the American legal system. This song also reveals many significant facts about America’s justice system. Finally, in this song she instructs people to wake up and realize that everything the government tells us is not the truth. Lauryn Hill has never been shy when expressing her beliefs in her songs. Lauryn Hill was first with the Fugees when America first heard her unique voice. As a singer and rapper, she has always been very
...this day justice has still not been served. If OJ didn’t do it then somebody did. Although some people might say that OJ has been dealt the wrath of karma, because he does indeed sit in prison for an unrelated crime.
5. Sinclair, Billy Wayne and Jodie Sinclair. Capital punishment: An Indictment by a Death-Row Survivor. New York: Arcade Publishing Inc., 2009. Print.
This sort of behavior is constant over time. Celebrities today are posted and paraded all over TV and magazines, no matter what they do. Justin Beiber was caught drunk driving, stealing property, and many more crimes.... ... middle of paper ... ...
"Who Goes to Jail? Matt Taibbi on American Injustice Gap From Wall Street to Main Street."
Grey, Madison. “The Affluenza defense: Judge rules Rich Kid’s Rich Kid-ness makes him Not Liable for Deadly Drunk Driving Accident”. Time.com. Web. 1 may 2014.
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.
Today most young people think that if a person is rich and famous, they can get away with anything. They see rappers get charged with felonies and then they see that the charges get dropped. They’ve heard of celebrities running over children while drunk and get away with it without doing any time. However, not all rappers have run-ins with the law, but the ones that do are very well known. Tupac Shakur (RIP), for example, had many run-ins with the law. He was arrested for aggravated assault, and charged with shooting two off duty police officers in Atlanta in 1993, but the charges were later dropped (bomp). He was also accused of beating a limousine driver in Los Angeles and found guilty of threatening a fellow rapper with a baseball bat in Michigan (bomp).
We see it all the time something that a normal individual would be in jail for a celebrity gets a tap on the wrist and a “don’t do that again” for it. If an individual with power and money do time for their crime they do time in a prison that’s more like a resort you can’t leave. An average person and a rich person could commit the same crime at the same time and the average person would get in more trouble than the rich person. The judicial system is messed up, but there is nothing anyone can do about it. A regular criminal compared to a white-collar criminal, when arrested a white-collar criminal are more likely to have their cases dismissed by the prosecutor and less likely to have to put up bail. If convicted they are more likely to get probation rather than jail and more likely to get shorter
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) changed the nature of libel suits by establishing that public figures must prove “‘actual malice’” to recover on a liability claim (Ibid 368) (Epstein and Walker 509). Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967) applied this standard to all public figures. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), Justice Powell held that private individuals were afforded more protection, noting that private citizens have less access to media channels and thus less ability to rebut defamatory articles published about them (Duhart 374). However, public figures, he contends, are much like public officials in that they “‘must accept certain necessary consequences of that involvement in public affairs’” (Ibid). Furthermore, decisions that cite Sidis, such as Friedan v. Friedan (1976), continue to ignore the passing of time as a means of abating one’s status as a public figure (Ibid). Friedan had been out of the public eye for “only” sixteen years; Sidis had sought seclusion for nearly thirty. “Thirty years ' retirement from public life should end the general public 's interest in the plaintiff14” yet evidently it does not always do so (Digital Repository at Maurer Law 420). Unfortunately, it is still true that “the passage of time usually has little or no effect on public figure status.” (Duhart
"Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time." -- David Grusin and Morgan Ames
SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 07 Feb. 2014. Sisto, Joseph. " Do Celebrities Forfeit the Right to Privacy?"