|
|
|
|
Payday for O.J. What is justice? How should we define it today? According to Black's Law Dictionary, Third Edition, justice is, "The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due. In the most extensive sense of the word it differs little from 'virtue;' for it includes within itself the whole circle of virtues." Webster's New Twentieth Century Unabridged Dictionary defines justice as, "The quality of being righteous; honesty, impartiality; fair representation of facts." Whether or not we individually agree with the verdict delivered in the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson, we must, as citizens of this democratic nation, abide by and uphold that verdict. In any dispute, which requires a mediator to decide between two or more parties, it is inevitable that someone is going to be disappointed with the decision or verdict. Our goal should not be perfection in decisions, but perfection of the system by which those decisions are being made. In O.J. Simpson's civil trial for the wrongful death of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, Mr. Simpson was found guilty. Again, we were witnesses to the truth stated above. Those who believed that O.J. Simpson was innocent of all charges were disappointed (intentionally understated), while those who believed that Orenthal James Simpson was guilty of murder were pleased (understatement again intentional). Now we are confronted by a genuine paradox. On the one hand, we have those who were entirely in favor of how the system worked to acquit O.J. of murder charges and those who were in complete disagreement with the system that delivered the "not guilty" verdict. On the other hand, after the civil trial, we see the same two camps have made a complete reversal of position. Those applauding the system for acquitting O.J. are now voicing their displeasure with that same system. Those previously disheartened by the legal system for the murder acquittal are now lauding its sanctity and strength. These major swings in attitude have nothing to do with justice. They are simply the means employed by individuals and groups to cope with the emotional stress that naturally accompanies these types of situations. Justice cannot be swayed by attitude or feeling. Justice must remain, "The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due." To render every man his due requires us to set aside emotion and be predisposed to act with honesty and righteousness. Yesterday, June 16, 1997, a judge determined that all of the assets of O.J. Simpson, heretofore seized, may indeed be auctioned off to help pay the $33.5M judgment against Mr. Simpson. This decision was not based on emotion, race, or prejudice. An emotional decision would look at what O.J. Simpson has already been through and would make allowance to preclude certain items (golf clubs and the Heisman trophy) from consideration. A racial decision would look at the civil unrest already prevalent and attempt to assuage hostilities. A prejudiced decision would lean toward a set of circumstances or data that are outside the scope of consideration. The decision to auction off O.J. Simpson's personal affects is an attempt to render to the Browns and Goldmans what has been determined to be their due. Orenthal James Simpson was acquitted of murder. That was his due, according to a jury of his peers. But that was not the end of the matter. The pendulum of justice had to finish its swing. In a separate trial, another jury determined that the Brown and Goldman families were to be compensated by Mr. Simpson to the tune of $33.5M. Now the matter is established. Now justice has prevailed. Now every man has been rendered his due. Had O.J. Simpson been convicted of murder, justice would not have looked at the anguish a sentence of guilty would bring upon family, friends, and supporters. Justice would not have looked at his children being raised without a father. Justice would have given O.J. his due, if he had been convicted, exactly the same as it has given him his due having been acquitted. If O.J. Simpson had been acquitted of the wrongful death charges, justice would not have looked to the heartache of the Browns and Goldmans. Justice would not have looked at the wrath of the millions of people who would have felt O.J. Simpson had escaped justice again. Justice would have sought to give him what was declared to be his due, exactly the same way justice has given to the Browns and Goldmans what is their due. Justice is not a personal decision in this country. Justice is the product of consensus. Not everyone can have a say in every issue; else a consensus could never be reached. Those duly appointed to reach a consensus do so in our stead. We are blessed to live in a nation where the common man can make these types of decisions. We are blessed not to be lorded over by a dictator or tyrant. We are blessed to be called upon to be the voice of justice. And until the unfortunate day that we should ever relinquish our right to appoint a jury to be a unified voice of justice on our behalf, we do both our country and ourselves a service in supporting and upholding the voice of lady justice in whatever she declares. That is our perspective, what is yours? |
|
|
