Just curious & making conversation. OJ just got sentenced to at least 15 yrs in jail. How do you feel about it? Does your opinion have anything to do with Nicole Brown & Ron Goldman?

Agreed. I think he got away with double murder & will finally have to serve some time for it, even though it's not really for that, you know what I mean! :-)

Karma baby ...

I firmly believe what you intentionally put out into the universe (good or bad), comes back to you.

I haven't kept track so I don't know what he is going to jail for although I suppose I could look it up.

I don't have much faith in our legal system in prosecuting those who should go to jail and being fair and just about it. I also don't trust our legal system to actually do a proper job of not only punishing people but also reforming people. Of course not everyone can be reformed.

As for celebrities that go to jail, there may be a sense of victory for some because it does seem like some celebrities and the rich get special treatment and may even feel they are above the law. I think they should be punished equally as those who have no money but the reality is celebrities will often get better treatment as well as have the money for better lawyers.

I was reading a totally non related story the other day about someone who did something horrendous but there is no real law against doing what she did or there wasn't at the time of her crime. So she will not be punished. I told the story to my husband and his response is 'sometimes life sucks and isn't fair'. So true.

Nyaah nyaah na nyaah nyaah.

I have one question though: How come some of the headlines on the web say he's getting 15 or 16 years, but another headline says he could get as many as 33 years?

I'm so okay with it....

Originally, he could of been sentenced to up to life. But he got sentenced to 15, and has to serve 9 before he's elibable for parole.

Yeah, that's what I understand from the news reports. What I'm asking is why most of the headlines said 15 years but the Associated Press says 33: perhaps was he convicted on more than one count and are the sentences served consecutively or concurrently, or what?

Oh, sorry, misunderstood. I'm not sure, the ones I've seen have said 15, maybe they're dumb...

The other guy got concurrent sentencing. Some of OJ's were consecutive. I've heard he could be out in as few as 6 years.

I just couldn't see him NOT getting any time on this one because of all the taping that went on and his voice stating "nobody leaves this room"! That is kidnapping and is a felony.

He got what he deserved. I do believe that his tears were real when he was apologizing. He most certainly did not have that smug look on his face as he did in 1995.

I think Judge Glass did an awesome job of keeping control of her courtroom during the trial.

I thought one of OJ's lawyers was kinda reaching when he went into this diatribe about the Civil War.

When the verdict came back on Nicole Brown I was watching it from work. I burst into tears. I couldn't believe it went down the way it did. He is going where he belongs. Maybe someone inside the joint will finish him.

From what I saw on the news he was sentenced to "9 to 33" years. Open-ended sentences aren't uncommon (or this might be the minimum and maximum sentence for the crimes he was convicted of - and the judge may actually have sentenced him to 15 or some other number in-between). In some areas that means he has to serve at least 9, before being eligible for parol. In some areas that means he is eligible for parole after only serving a portion of the minimum. 50% or even 33% was standard in many areas (when I was a probation officer in the 90's in central IL, half the minimum sentence was common - in fact, parole was almost guaranteed for "good behavior" after about 40 to 50 % of the sentence was served - where "good behavior" only meant you hadn't killed anyone in prison), but now with truth in sentencing laws, the standard I think (don't quote me) now is 2/3 (which is probably where the 6 comes from as it's 2/3 of the minimum sentence - so he probably is eligible for parole in 6 years).

My gut feeling would be that he is unlikely to serve much more than the minimum, as the parole board would be expected to not take their feelings over an acquittal in another case as reason to deny him parole (but parole boards are made up of human beings, so you can't discount the possibility that they will take their personal feelings into account as much as the facts they are supposed to review). So as long as he is on his best behavior in prision, I think serving the max or even the median sentence (which would be 21 years) would be very unlikely.

I think that once you get off on murder. You shouldn't do anything wrong, ever.

I think I would have been a lot less creeped out by the guy if he hadn't written the "If I Did It" book (which I didn't read, even though the proceeds are supposed to go to the Goldman family).

One thing I think is really ironic about the case (for me) is that some people argued that the only reason anyone immediately thought he committed the murders was because he was black. Well, to tell you what a complete sports idiot I was, I didn't know that OJ was black when they first reported his arrest. When I was a kid, I had watched orange juice commercials that OJ and Larry Bird starred in together, and for some reason I associated Larry Bird's face with OJ's name, so I thought he was a blonde white guy when I first heard the news (and I still thought there was a high probability that he'd been behind the murders, but only because my experience in psychology, social services, and law enforcement is that the (ex)husband/boyfriend - usually does it). Certainly not enough to warrant a conviction, but racism definitely didn't play a role in my opinion (now sexism - possibly).

I think taking this case completely on it's own merits, without even considering past cases or behavior- the judge always has the discretion to charge anywhere between the minimum and the maximum, and so regardless of who the defendent is, if he or she gets anything less than the maximum, I generally consider that more "lucky" than "unfair." When I was a probation officer, I did feel (only a tiny bit) sympathetic for some of my probation clients (some of whom were more stupid than bad) when they goofed up again and the judge gave them a super-stiff penalty, but the potential penalty for any crime is easy for anyone to look up - so if you're going to do the crime, you have to be prepared to do (the maximum) time, and anything else is "lucky." Some judges I think gave the maximum sentences in some cases, just because they (the judges) were having a bad day. On one hand it's not "fair," and on the other hand, it's very fair, as it's not as though the maximum punishment for any crime (in this day of the internet) isn't available for anyone to look up before they decide whether or not to commit a criminal act.

Sure most people aren't smart enough to research or even consider the potential consequences of their criminal actions, they may not even know that the action is criminal (though very rarely did they, in hindsight or even in the moment, think it was a smart idea) - still, as they say "ignorance of the law, is no defense."

Well, you see, the only problem is if he's going to be spending all those years in jail he won't be able to continue his tireless search for Ron and Nicole's killers.