OJ Simpson Convicted on Robbery, But Sentenced for Murder: Fair?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

btw, taking hostages is also kidnapping in this state (and should be everywhere else IMO)

[Snowboarder_Bo]

ok, with the factual stuff out of the way, let me respond to the OP

Orenthal Simpson has not been sentenced yet. His sentencing is now scheduled for 5 December 2008. He has been remanded to custody until sentencing. He is currently being held at the Clark County Jail, where he has his own 7’x14’ cell.

Your OP comes off as if sentencing had happened, not as the hypothetical situation that it is.

[sailor]

@5-4-Fighting

If I understand it correctly, kidnapping can also apply if they did not believe they could leave that room.

I think you mean “if they believed they could not leave the room”. I believe it went something like this: AOL Video - Serving the best video content from AOL and around the web - AOL.com

[gonzomax]

@Snowboarder_Bo

In our great state of Nevada, kidnapping is defined thus:

cite

(bolding mine)

Orenthal kidnapped those 2 men. He detained them, at gunpoint, for the purpose of gaining possession of items in their control.

Are there degrees of kidnapping ? This can not be the same crime as taking a person against their will . If you are trying to rob people it would be necessary to have them stay while you do it. That seems alike a stretch.

[Gozu]

@Snowboarder_Bo

In our great state of Nevada, kidnapping is defined thus:

cite

(bolding mine)

Orenthal kidnapped those 2 men. He detained them, at gunpoint, for the purpose of gaining possession of items in their control.

OJ’s first name is Orenthal? I honestly never knew. I even thought you were referring to one of his accomplices at first, until I read your second post.

Orenthal. What an unusual name.

Anyways, considering that no one was harmed, but taking into account the fact the the acts were premeditated. I’d say the accused should spend no more than 5 years behind bars before he is paroled.

Unfortunately for him, he wrote a book named “If I did it, here is how it would have happened” about a double murder he was accused of. This made everybody involved adamant about not cutting him any slack.

He probably won’t spend that long in prison. Famous people seldom do.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@gonzomax

Are there degrees of kidnapping ? This can not be the same crime as taking a person against their will . If you are trying to rob people it would be necessary to have them stay while you do it. That seems alike a stretch.

Perhaps you should use links before you ask questions, eh. You can learn a lot by clicking and reading.

@Nevada Revised Statutes

NRS 200.310 Degrees.
1. A person who willfully seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a person by any means whatsoever with the intent to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the person for ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or robbery upon or from the person, or for the purpose of killing the person or inflicting substantial bodily harm upon him, or to exact from relatives, friends, or any other person any money or valuable thing for the return or disposition of the kidnapped person, and a person who leads, takes, entices, or carries away or detains any minor with the intent to keep, imprison, or confine him from his parents, guardians, or any other person having lawful custody of the minor, or with the intent to hold the minor to unlawful service, or perpetrate upon the person of the minor any unlawful act is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree which is a category A felony.
2. A person who willfully and without authority of law seizes, inveigles, takes, carries away or kidnaps another person with the intent to keep the person secretly imprisoned within the State, or for the purpose of conveying the person out of the State without authority of law, or in any manner held to service or detained against his will, is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree which is a category B felony.
[1:165:1947; 1943 NCL § 10612.05]—(NRS A 1959, 20; 1979, 39; 1987, 495; 1995, 1184)

  NRS 200.320  Kidnapping in first degree: Penalties.  A person convicted of kidnapping in the first degree is guilty of a category A felony and shall be punished:
  1.  Where the kidnapped person suffers substantial bodily harm during the act of kidnapping or the subsequent detention and confinement or in attempted escape or escape therefrom, by imprisonment in the state prison:
  (a) For life without the possibility of parole;
  (b) For life with the possibility of parole, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 15 years has been served; or
  (c) For a definite term of 40 years, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 15 years has been served.
  2.  Where the kidnapped person suffers no substantial bodily harm as a result of the kidnapping, by imprisonment in the state prison:
  (a) For life with the possibility of parole, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 5 years has been served; or
  (b) For a definite term of 15 years, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 5 years has been served.
  [2:165:1947; 1943 NCL § 10612.06]—(NRS A 1967, 469; 1973, 1804; 1995, 1184)

  NRS 200.330  Kidnapping in second degree: Penalties.  A person convicted of kidnapping in the second degree is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 2 years and a maximum term of not more than 15 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $15,000.
  [3:165:1947; 1943 NCL § 10612.07]—(NRS A 1967, 469; 1979, 1425; 1995, 1185)

@Gozu

OJ’s first name is Orenthal? I honestly never knew. I even thought you were referring to one of his accomplices at first, until I read your second post.

Orenthal. What an unusual name.

Yep. Orenthal James Simpson. As Chris Rock said, if he hadn’t played football and been rich, we’d know him as Orenthal the Bus Driving Maniac, maybe.

@wikipedia

His aunt gave him the name Orenthal, which supposedly was the name of a French actor she liked

Trouble is, nobody has ever unearthed a French actor by that name, either first name or surname, that I know of.

[Richard_Parker]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Your OP comes off as if sentencing had happened, not as the hypothetical situation that it is.

What an odd thing to say. I wrote, “Thus, in the example of the OJ Simpson robbery verdict, the judge could theoretically give OJ a harsher sentence.”

What do you think about the fairness of this procedure?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Richard_Parker

What an odd thing to say. I wrote, “Thus, in the example of the OJ Simpson robbery verdict, the judge could theoretically give OJ a harsher sentence.”

What do you think about the fairness of this procedure?

I really have no opinion on this procedure, for several reasons. Chief among them is the fact that it is impossible to know all of the factors that a judge takes into account when they set a sentence. We may know what they tell us, but that doesn’t mean other factors weren’t considered and then not enumerated.

Secondary is the fact that I seriously doubt it has ever happened. I certainly have never heard of it
And with the way you phrased the title, I think the question is both beggared and ridiculous. You might as well ask if we think its fair that the judge gave him a million dollar home and a Chinese baby girl. It hasn’t happened, and you provide no cites to show that a judge, any judge, anywhere, has ever tried to use an incident which was acquitted as a basis for imposing a harsher than normal sentence. (I’m not a lawyer, or a judge, so a cite that this has happened at all would be helpful.)

It strikes me that no judge would be stupid enough to write that down, as it would be a clear avenue for appeals to begin.

@Richard Parker

The logic is that sentencing is about balancing a lot of factors, and one such factor is the judge’s belief that the defendant is actually guilty of other crimes.

The judge has to find, on a preponderance of the evidence (meaning something like “more likely than not”), that the defendant actually committed the assault. So, the jury may have acquitted because they had reasonable doubt, but the judge can have reasonable doubt and still determine that the evidence points strongly toward the defendant’s guilt.

But judges don’t sentence people who are acquitted, so who cares if they think the defendant is guilty?

If a defendant is up on 3 charges, and is acquitted on 1 charge, what judge would be so stupid as to explicitly refer to the acquitted charge when explaining why they imposed the harshest sentence allowed?

In fact, are judges even required to explain why they chose a particular sentence?

[Richard_Parker]

This is something that happens all the time. And judges do–in fact, must–explicitly refer to the acquitted crime. Usually the Ass. U.S. Attorney expressly argues that the sentence should be harsher because of the acquitted crime. I have seen it with my own eyes, but if you don’t trust me, I’m sure you can google it.

What I’m interested in discussing is what you think of the fairness of this situation. Do you have any thoughts on that?

[Richard_Parker]

Judges do explicitly refer to the acquitted crime. In federal court (the only place I’ve personally witnessed this), the U.S. Attorneys will expressly argue that a sentence should be harsher because of an acquitted crime. I don’t have any non-subscription cites, but maybe someone else can dig something up.

(sorry about the double post–stupid server)

[Snowboarder_Bo]

well ok then

In that light, then I have no problem with the concept.

I can see where a person might be persecuted unjustly and then have many unfounded incidents cited as a reason for a harsh(er) sentence, and that is troubling, but I can also see the sense that some people could just be bad apples who have walked on technicality after technicality.

I can see where a judge would say “Mr. Snoarder, you have been a drain on the resources of the system and so I am going to put you in jail for the maximum 10 years instead of the minimum 2, in the hope that that will finally have a corrective effective on your behaviour, and in the hope that it will prevent resources from being squandered on any possible future actions.” Seems like a good idea, from the perspective of the justice system.

I suppose we have to have some trust in our system, and in the people administering it. If there is reason to believe that things are inappropriate and malodorous, we have another system for appealing decisions to attempt to correct.

It’s not perfect, but it doesn’t seem inherently unfair to me either.