|
Sometimes I include a term in this column simply because I have come
across a good example to illustrate the point.
A case in point is today's discussion of the legal term double
jeopardy, using OJ Simpson as an example. I can not have picked a poorer
example, I know.
But, yes, OJ is in the news.
First, definition.
Double jeopardy refers to putting a person on trial for the same crime
twice. It's against the law in the United States. Specifically it's
forbidden by the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states:
"The constitutional prohibition against 'double jeopardy' was designed
to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and
possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense. . . . The
underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the
Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its
resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to
convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to
embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a
continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the
possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.
"The concept of double jeopardy goes far back in history..."
I'm not going further into it, but I think you've got the drift.
In the United States during the passing week, OJ was literally back in
town and had the whole nation on tearful, fearful and hateful watch out.
Americans will never forget/forgive the Trial (of the Century) of OJ
Simpson, the marquee football player, for murdering his ex-wife (Nicole
Brown Simpson) and her friend (Ron Goldman). Many Americans believe to
this day that OJ killed those people, but the court acquitted him. Lionel
Shriver, writing in the Guardian (November 23, 2006), said "OJ played the
American justice system like another triumphant football game in 1994,
found not guilty of murdering his ex-wife and her friend with expensive
legal athletics", pretty much summing up the attitude of many Americans
toward the verdict.
To rub salt into their wounds, OJ wrote a book making a "hypothetical"
confession to the crime titled If I Did It (The book was due out at the
end of this month but the project, along with a two-part interview on Fox
television, has since been cancelled in face of a media outcry unanimously
condemning the sinister double act).
OJ stands few legal risks for making the "confession", thanks to the
aforementioned constitutional protections against double jeopardy. He
cannot be tried again for the same crime even if what he says in the book
turns out to be the actual reality.
The law being the law, money is the bigger issue in the latest round of
the OJ fiasco. People are justifiably shocked that OJ was given this
opportunity to speak his true and hideous mind (hypothetically, of course)
in the first place. But then no-one should be shocked at all because
there's money to be made from all around, for OJ and more for the
malicious publishers and the television studios.
"At issue", Shriver wrote in the same Guardian article, "was not just
getting away with murder, but money, which Americans may take more
seriously." Only in America.
'Nuff said. You may not forgive OJ perhaps, but hopefully you'll never
forget the term "double jeopardy".
| 
