CULTURE/SOCIETY: My Take on the O.J. Trial

I know it's a little late to comment on it, but Kevin wrote the following in his comment to my blog on the Michael Jackson trial - "Unlike the OJ trial, I think the MJ trial is a far better illustration of how the American justice system is supposed to work."

Well, I would probably agree that Michael's trial is a better illustration on how the American justice system should work, but I think O.J.'s trial also demonstrated it.

I'll say right off that I didn't followed the trial that closely. In fact, I tried to avoid it as much as I could. But it was, of course, totally impossible to completely avoid it.

And from what I saw, I have to admit that I think O.J. is probably guilty.

But I still think he should have been found not guilty at trial.

Why? Glad you asked.

Because they didn't have any way of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that O.J. did it. The evidence had been tampered with and dealt with so poorly, that there was no way it could be rightfully used. Therefore, there was no way to prove O.J. was guilty.

And you can't - and should not - arrest a man for probably or possibly killing someone.

And I know a lot of people will whine and cry about it and complain about our justice system. But I think our justice system did the right thing in the O.J. trial.

If you don't want murderers going free, then make sure the police are honest, so honest people can't be set up. O.J. has to be set free, so that innocent people who are set up can be set free.

And finally, if you want to get mad at someone for O.J.'s freedom, then you should get mad at the LAPD and the crime lab. Because it's their fault the evidence was messed up. If they had done their job right, O.J. might be behind bars now. Like I said, make sure your police are honest.