O J Simpson Sentencing Report

J. Simpson had been having bouts of violence directed towards his ex-wife which resulted in their divorce. First of all, I would like to criticize the media who are present in this courtroom for giving the case undue pressure and coverage where you regularly broke the rules that had been set before the beginning of the trial. In this regard, there are times when I watched the news in disbelief as you directed the attention even to the members of the jury by investigating their background which is contrary to the freedoms that this court has given you. However, it is good to point out the mistakes of the court and offer positive criticism that is supposed to enable us to work better in the delivery of justice.

The social contract that O. J Simpson has destroyed are several which range from disrespecting the rule of law, the institution of marriage and the taking of a human life which is intolerable under God or law. Therefore, the social contract that was broken can only be amended by punishing the offender justifiably by following the law that has been set in our country. It is worthy to note that from the beginning of the trial the offender has been given the due process as required by the law and there are no objections from the defense counsel or the prosecutor that matters of law have not been followed. The constitution of our country guarantees that the due process has some several rights to a fair and public trial that is conducted competently, the presence of all parties at trial, impartiality of the jury, hearing of both sides of the case and finally right to be heard through a person’s own defense (Ray, 2017).

The reason for following the principle of deterrence is to discourage any other person who may feel that they can commit a heinous crime because a celebrity did the same and got away with it. Therefore, the sentencing that will come from this court is supposed to accord justice to the victims and their families while it ensures that a strong message is sent into this nation that no person should commit a crime because of their celebrity status. The sentence that I order for the crime should be 25 years in prison with a minimum of 15 years without parole all of these sentences should run concurrently subject to review when the time comes for parole. In understanding the principle of deterrence, the law should be able to accord the society and the individual’s autonomy, dignity and freedom and in that sense, any person who breaks that order should be taken away (Braga & Weisburd, 2012).