O.J. 15 Gets years in Jail

Biggins · 05-12-2008 07:20PM #1

Delighted to see that O.J. has just gotten 2 minutes ago 15 years in jail.
Sentenced at 6.17pm Irish time.
Watching it live O.J. didn't look too happy.

Counts 1 to 10
1 1 year
2 48 months
3 48 months
4 120 Months
5 15 years
6 15 Years
7 180 months
8 180 months
9 72 months
10 72 months

All terms are to run concurrent.
(He served 64 days so far)
He's in for 6 years before he can even apply for parole.

It was great to see the criminal live being sentenced.
It made me think... why don't we have cameras in our court rooms for most cases?
I understand that for family cases, this should not be the case but in others shouldn't we actually be allowed to see the criminal more often than not!

Time Magazine · 05-12-2008 07:23PM

Better late than never.

ShooterSF · 05-12-2008 07:25PM

Biggins wrote: »

Delighted to see that O.J. has just gotten 2 minutes ago xx years in jail.
Sentenced at 6.17pm Irish time.
Watching it live O.J. didn't look too happy.

Counts 1 to 10
1 1 year
2 48 months
3 48 months
4 120 Months
5 15 years
6 15 Years
7 180 months
8 180 months
9 72 months
10 72 months

All terms are to run concurrent.
(He served 64 days so far)

It was great to see the criminal live being sentenced.
It made me think... why don't we have cameras in our court rooms for most cases?
I understand that for family cases, this should not be the case but in others shouldn't we actually be allowed to see the criminal more often than not!

God no. People don't actually get the whole innocent till proven guilty thing and even if the person (not criminal) was found not guilty people would still assume he did something. Then this innocent person who's case was televised and whose face is now well known would unfairly be treated as a criminal by Joe public.

Biggins · 05-12-2008 07:26PM

Good point.

He was shown live however AFTER he was found guilty.
Could we not do the same?

After the convicted criminals that have been found guilty, come back to plead for a lower prison term length, could we then see their guilty faces?

jhegarty · 05-12-2008 07:26PM

did he get credit on time served for last time ?

Sharpshooter · 05-12-2008 07:30PM

Fresh OJ for the inmates.

Morlar · 05-12-2008 07:31PM

About bloody time.

ShooterSF · 05-12-2008 07:33PM

Morlar wrote: »

About bloody time.

Jeez it only happened last year. How fast do think they can get through cases?

Guy:Incognito · 05-12-2008 07:34PM

Whats the difference between 15 years and 180 months?

Jimbo · 05-12-2008 07:34PM

He would have got that sentance for murder in this country.

He has got his comuppance

magick · 05-12-2008 07:34PM

not long enough, but given its something

jhegarty · 05-12-2008 07:36PM

Stekelly wrote: »

Whats the difference between 15 years and 180 months?

One sounds more that other.

I just haven't worked out which does yet.

themadchef · 05-12-2008 07:36PM

Pity he didn't get more.

Televising high profile cases like this would give people notoriety. Some people crave attention, it might make people go one step further just for the fame.

Jimbo · 05-12-2008 07:37PM

Stekelly wrote: »

Whats the difference between 15 years and 180 months?

The spelling?

nyarlothothep · 05-12-2008 07:37PM

15 months has two digits whereas 180 months has 3.

Sharpshooter · 05-12-2008 07:41PM

Of course there will be the usual appeal by the Lawyers
of OJ , but surely that would be a waste of time .
Justice has caught up with him at last and l hope it stays that way.

humanji · 05-12-2008 07:41PM

Biggins wrote: »

Good point.

He was shown live however AFTER he was found guilty.
Could we not do the same?

After the convicted criminals that have been found guilty, come back to plead for a lower prison term length, could we then see their guilty faces?

That could turn out fairly badly if someone won an appeal. They'd be innocent, but people will still have seen there faces on papers proclaiming them to be killers or rapist etc. (just trying to cover myself for when they find the bodies...eh, I mean if they find the bodies...eh, I mean if there were bodies to find...)

seanybiker · 05-12-2008 07:43PM

fair rough sentence for what he done. He will be out in a few years . Then he will sell his story to some movie maker and make tonnes of money from it all.

Biggins · 05-12-2008 07:44PM

The judge stated quite clearly that she was sentencing him based solely on the fact that everything he did, was premeditated, recorded from phone and camera from start to finish, that he brought guns, he terrorised and kidnapped and knew at later stages (recorded phone calls) that he knew he had to get rid of the gun evidence.

Possibility of appeal - extremely slim to say the least, by all accounts and independent assessments.
Can't say I'm not delighted.

Biggins · 05-12-2008 07:47PM

seanybiker wrote: »

fair rough sentence for what he done. He will be out in a few years . Then he will sell his story to some movie maker and make tonnes of money from it all.

Any money he makes will directly go to the parents and family of the girl he was found guilty of denying her rights of.
- He escaped the murder charge so the family of the murdered girl brought an independent charge of rights denial - when they won, they were awarded millions. He refused to pay or wouldn't pay so he was chased, sued and lost. Subsequently - ANYTHING - he makes, goes to them till the millions in the fines, are paid off.

Thats why he even lost his rights to the book he wrote "If I Did It!" and those book rights were given to the murdered girls family.

b0bsquish · 05-12-2008 07:49PM

Goddamnit now I cant say "Free like OJ, did it and got away with it"

seanybiker · 05-12-2008 07:52PM

Biggins wrote: »

Any money he makes will directly go to the parents and family of the girl he was found guilty of denying her rights of.
- He escaped the murder charge so the family of the murdered girl brought an independent charge of rights denial - when they won, they were awarded millions. He refused to pay or wouldn't pay so he was chased, sued and lost. Subsequently - ANYTHING - he makes, goes to them till the millions in the fines, are paid off.

Thats why he even lost his rights to the book he wrote "If I Did It!" and those book rights were given to the murdered girls family.

Oh right i didnt know that

Sharpshooter · 05-12-2008 07:56PM

Biggins wrote: »

The judge stated quite clearly that she was sentencing him based solely on the fact that everything he did, was premeditated, recorded from phone and camera from start to finish, that he brought guns, he terrorised and kidnapped and knew at later stages (recorded phone calls) that he knew he had to get rid of the gun evidence.

Possibility of appeal - extremely slim to say the least, by all accounts and independent assessments.
Can't say I'm not delighted.

Before sentencing he told the Judge he " was sorry " and "confused" and admitted he had been stupid.
Thank God , she saw him as the exact opposite .
lt most certainly wasn't a confused person that organized all that.

Hagar · 05-12-2008 07:58PM

He was always going to go to gaol for something.

shenanigans1982 · 05-12-2008 08:00PM

sharpshooterH wrote: »

lt most certainly wasn't a confused person that organized all that.

You need to remember this is the same guy that got stuck under a bus and got his afro caught in a doorway.

tolosenc · 05-12-2008 08:21PM

15 years is a bit harsh for what was essetially an armed robbery, no?

Sharpshooter · 05-12-2008 08:27PM

obl wrote: »

15 years is a bit harsh for what was essetially an armed robbery, no?

Depends how you look at it , l think he got away with murder.

shotgun mike · 05-12-2008 08:27PM

Now now, he was found not guilty of murder by the most fair and transparent legal system in the world.

peanuthead · 05-12-2008 08:28PM

Biggins wrote: »

It made me think... why don't we have cameras in our court rooms for most cases?
I understand that for family cases, this should not be the case but in others shouldn't we actually be allowed to see the criminal more often than not!

It shouldn't be allowed at all, I personally think it's disgraceful. If not for the privacy of the criminal, for the privacy of his/her family. I think its sad and typically American that this would be broadcast for all to see on television, and is a reminder of how nosey and obsessed we all are with everyone elses business. Why not go the whole hog and have Dr Phil as the guest judge.

Jimbo · 05-12-2008 08:29PM

shotgun mike wrote: »

Now now, he was found not guilty of murder by the most fair and transparent legal system in the world.

Judge Judy?

Biggins · 05-12-2008 08:31PM

obl wrote: »

15 years is a bit harsh for what was essetially an armed robbery, no?

With a group of fellow armed men, threatening others there, kidnapping one - hell NO.

Besides the non-chargeable aspects of then holing a party for a successful(!) robbery, rubbing and insulting the parents of the girl he denied right to (he killed!), telling them to f**k off when it came to collecting what a previous court had awarded them. He told them also he was going back to playing his golf and told them to sod off repeatedly by phone calls and outside the courts as they were (successfully as it turned out) suing him.

As for the TV aspect - justice must be seen to be done and not just done behind closed doors.

Those robbed, raped and murdered, they and their family should get the right to see exposed, those that have been found guilty of such heinous crimes.
(...but that's just my way of looking at it)

O.J. 15 Gets years in Jail

Comments