I really had a hard time understanding. OJ, trying to get stuff he owned. Then he got 33 years in prison even though nobody get hurt. And we know how good OJ lawyers must be.
However, many “repeat” offenders often get only 3 years for premeditated murders
I mean, I am Chinese so I am pretty neutral here. But is it really true that black are more likely to end up in jail than white for the same degree of damage they do to society?
Last time I’ve heard that a wife that killed her husband get away with only 3 years in prison. Boy, another reason never to get married.
“Even though nobody got hurt”? If a bunch of guys walk into your room with loaded weapons, threaten you with bodily harm, and forcibly take stuff, you think they get let off with a warning? That is, by definition here, kidnapping. Kidnapping is a violent crime. The lack of broken bones and/or gunshot wounds doesn’t mean it isn’t kidnapping.
Additionally, trying to use the sentence in one case to contrast with another is fraught with inaccuracies. IOW, you simply can’t do it. The analogy becomes even more hopeless when the case you pick isn’t what you think it is. Nesler was not a repeat offender, for instance.
The thing is you’re assuming a trial is about justice and fairness. It’s not, it’s about getting a conviction. Look at the death pentalty. Women, no matter how bad the crime, rarely even get tried for a capital case. The DA chooses to go for life imprisonment, 'cause juries won’t give a woman a death penalty.
A man commits the same offense, and it’s the death sentence.
Some offenses like drug cases carry mandatory terms or minimums. This was part of the “war on drugs.”
The bottom line is our judical system “Claims” each case is a seperate case into itself. Therefore it is impossible to compare the sentences of two people.
I understand. I was not contrasting OJ to Neal. I was referring to the apparent misunderstanding that the OP evidently believed Neal was a repeat offender, probably because they mixed up Neal’s crimes with those of her son.
