http://mouthpieceblog.disqus.com/enSun, 07 Dec 2008 06:18:34 -0000http://www.mouthpiecesports.com/blog/2008/12/03/a-harsh-sentence-for-oj-simpson-will-get-us-nowhere/#comment-4234227It is an abuse of the legal system to punish Simpson now for an acquitted charge. Trouble is judges were once lawyers and lawyers are not trusted. Judges care about a few things, justice is way down the list. Public opinion is quite high on the list.brianohSun, 07 Dec 2008 06:18:34 -0000http://www.mouthpiecesports.com/blog/2008/12/03/a-harsh-sentence-for-oj-simpson-will-get-us-nowhere/#comment-4215851I totally agree with you. <br><a href="http://ginovandewalle.com/oj-simpson-from-hero-to-zero-to-sixteen-years/" rel="nofollow">http://ginovandewalle.com/oj-s...</a>Gino Van de WalleFri, 05 Dec 2008 18:54:16 -0000http://www.mouthpiecesports.com/blog/2008/12/03/a-harsh-sentence-for-oj-simpson-will-get-us-nowhere/#comment-4154563While realizing this post was not to get into factual details about the case, just a clarification that the minimum he could receive is 6 years. He is guilty of 2 counts of kidnapping with a deadly weapon (minimum sentence 6 years) and 2 counts of armed robbery with a deadly weapon (minimum sentence 3 years) among the other charges' penalties which will run concurrent. If the judge allows all charges to run concurrent the minimum sentencing is 6 years, if she does not, the minimum sentence will be 18 years (6+6+3+3). <br> <br>The difficult issue the judge has to wrestle with (and creating wet dreams for law nerds) is whether OJ's sentence will be enhanced based on prior acquitted conduct. This says sentencing could technically factor into any judgment against him where the preponderance of evidence was used as a threshold to determine guilt, thus his guilty verdict in civil court could be used to sentence him Friday as a person responsible for the murder of two people despite being exonerated from this charge in criminal court, where the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt exists. Simpson may in fact "deserve" one under a strict legal definition after all. <br> <br>Follow these links if interested in the legal discussion: <br><a href="http://volokh.com/posts/1223150388.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://volokh.com/posts/122315...</a> <br><a href="http://volokh.com/posts/1190048872.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://volokh.com/posts/119004...</a>PMKWed, 03 Dec 2008 17:11:47 -0000