Author Archive for paul-butler
Mr. Simpson’s Nine Years
posted by Paul Butler
My colleague Orin Kerr, in response to my earlier post about O.J. Simpson’s sentencing, asks if I agree with the perception that I attributed to “some blacks” that an exceptionally harsh sentence yesterday would have been an affront to the principle of the rule of law (because it actually would have been punishing Mr. Simpson for a different crime -one he was acquitted of, to the chagrin of many white people).
I think the judge’s nine year sentence is tough, but defensible. Nine years is prison is a hella long time, as most western industrialized nations understand a lot better than the U.S. does. The judge repeatedly stated that she was not punishing Mr. Simpson for any criminal act other than the one of which the jury convicted him. If the judge had sentenced Mr. Simpson to a significantly longer term, and not provided those assurances, the concerns my first post identified would have been justified.
The judge’s reasonably fair decision in this case strengthens the argument against strict sentencing guidelines, and in support of giving judges the discretion, and latitude, to actually decide individual cases. Here’s to letting judges be judges.
December 6, 2008 at 8:31 am
Posted in: Criminal Law
Print This Post
13 Comments
O.J. Simpson Sentencing
posted by Paul Butler
O.J. Simpson gets sentenced today for the bone headed act of leading a group of men, at least one of whom had a gun, into a hotel room to steal some memorabilia that, at some point, had belonged to him. His sentencing exposure ranges from six years to life imprisonment. Here’s hoping the judge does not throw the book at him.
Simpson has been, for many African-Americans, a complicated symbol of the rule of law. Charged with a brutal crime of violence against a white woman and man, Simpson had a trial. Not so long ago in the United States of America, he might have been lynched, just on the accusation. Then, despite some evidence that he committed the crime, the jury acquitted him, largely because of an inept prosecution that relied too much on the testimony of a lying, racist police officer. Some of the jurors believed that Simpson was “probably” guilty, but correctly understood that “probably” does not reach the “beyond reasonable doubt” threshold required for a criminal conviction.
You know the rest. Black glee, white fury, racial divide yadda yadda yadda. There was a sense among many African Americans that we won something, not “won” in the euphoric-still-can-make-me-cry-when-I-think-about-it sense of the Obama “verdict” (which, for the record, most white voters also did not support), but won in an angrier, uglier, more visceral way. Not only didn’t O.J. get lynched for a notorious crime against a white woman, he actually got away with it, based on the law. “Rules are rules,” the expression goes. “All we want,” Martin Luther King said, “is what you put on paper.”
It was never about Simpson, thank God, because the one thing the races can agree on is that he is an idiot. He didn’t have the grace to retire to Florida and live the quiet life of a symbol-of-the- rule-of-law. He messed up, again. Still, in the realm of what criminals do, Simpson’s act was medium bad, not a minor offense, but far from a horrific one. If he is punished too much, it will feel to some African-Americans like the night riders, better late than never, came for him after all.
December 5, 2008 at 9:21 am
Posted in: Criminal Law
Print This Post
22 Comments
