Is it a law for one and not the other?

[Dr Afzal 12]

But what if it was the other extreme like this article in today`s news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39945651

[Guest]

Was OJ found guilty by a jury and let off by a judge because they felt he had good career prospects?

 

Well no, but he was clearly guilty but got off.

[Waldo 96]

Well no, but he was clearly guilty but got off.

 

Maybe got off for different wrong reasons though; I imagine because he had the funds for excellent legal representation.

[max 13]

Well no, but he was clearly guilty but got off.

 

To the jury he was clearly innocent. You cannot re-write history.

[geared 302]

To the jury he was clearly innocent. You cannot re-write history.

 

From various interviews jurors gave after the trial it seemed like they were not convinced by the prosecutions case, some even saying that while they felt he was guilty they did not believe the case was strong enough to pass that judgement.

 

The case was marred by allegations of corruption, racism and police incompetence. All of which were very much in the public eye at that time.

[El Cid 212]

Was O J Simpson white??

 

So we should add rich to the equation too?

[Cyclone 10]

I'm really not sure how someone found not guilty in the US and someone found guilty but not punished in the UK are comparable.

[redfox 10]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/16/oxford-student-spared-jail-extraordinary-talent/

 

 

He has deferred sentence no doubt with a variety of conditions.

 

We don't know what the victim said in the VPS. The Judge will have also had to consider and follow the appropriate guidelines.

 

I wasn't in court to hear the case and no nothing more than the details the reporter has included in the piece in the paper. In my experience, unless you know the full facts of the case expressing views is all well and good but can be wide of the mark.

[TORONTONY 10]

To the jury he was clearly innocent. You cannot re-write history.

 

In Canada , the Crown would have appealed the acquittal and OJ probably wouldn't have been so lucky the second time. Canada does not have the double jeopardy laws like the US and the UK. One can be tried more than once for the same offence, should the prosecution haves grounds to appeal.

[sgtkate 10]

In Canada , the Crown would have appealed the acquittal and OJ probably wouldn't have been so lucky the second time. Canada does not have the double jeopardy laws like the US and the UK. One can be tried more than once for the same offence, should the prosecution haves grounds to appeal.

 

We don't have the double jeopardy law any longer. Same as I assume Canada has in that you can be retried if new evidence comes to light. Changed about 10 years ago I think.

[geared 302]

Wasn't it changed to nail one particular case as well?

[sgtkate 10]

Wasn't it changed to nail one particular case as well?

 

I can't remember to be honest. I remember it changing and it being a big deal at the time. It's completely the right decision as well, clearly if new evidence comes to light why on earth would it not be the right decision to go for a retrial?