The OJ Simpson trial provided interesting lessons regarding guilt, innocence and criminal procedure, but the most interesting lesson was that none of the real lessons were ever learned or broadly applied. People all over America watched the trial, but it’s unclear whether they really learned anything from it. That’s a shame because it was such an opportunity.
The American media loves lurid tales of crime and passion, which made the OJ Simpson case tailor-made for the modern machine of mass media. The media, in turn, made the case one of the most famous contemporary criminal trials during a time which has had many famous trials.
Unlike those other famous defendants — and very unlike most defendants, period — OJ Simpson came with ready-made support from the wider public. Scantier evidence than what faced Simpson was sufficient for people to quickly condemn others charged with crimes. For once, people were actually willing to presume someone’s innocence and follow a complicated trial in order to use the actual evidence to determine his guilt.
Regardless of whether or not Simpson was guilty, and regardless of whether or not his trial was a model of justice and procedure, the fact that there were many people willing to suspend judgment was very important. It is simply sad that afterwards, most returned to their old ways and old methods of judgment, failing to realize that the consideration (and defense!) received by Simpson is of the sort which every accused person should, in theory, receive.
The lessons, then, of the OJ Simpson trial seem to be that a good defense for someone accused of murder is possible, but only when they have enough money to hire the best lawyers and/or when they have enough fame to attract a benefit of the doubt from other citizens.
This raises the very important issue of the role that money plays in criminal trials. The more money a person has, the better private defense they can afford — and the more likely they are to be found innocent. Poor people who cannot afford a high quality defense team and who might even have to rely upon the public defender’s office is far more likely to be found guilty.
Should a person’s net worth really be a relevant factor in whether they are innocent guilty in a criminal trial? Obviously not — but that’s the situation we have in America today and it’s utterly deplorable. Even the staunchest defender of capital punishment will have to agree that guilt or innocence should be determined by the fact of a case, not the amount of money a person has to spend on their defense.
Because of this some have argued that the state should be required to better fund public defender’s offices — preferably to the same degree that prosecutors and police are funded. After all, the state may have an obligation to incarcerate criminals but a person is only a “criminal” after they have been convicted. Prior to conviction, a person is presumed innocent and the state has an obligation to be just as vigorous in the defense of an accused person as in their prosecution.
Of course, the fact that a person is technically presumed to be innocent before convicted, on a practical level they often aren’t. Funding the defense of accused criminals to the same degree that their prosecution is would not be very popular politically. People who see this as funding the activities of criminals, thus showing that the accused are treated as if they were already convicted. Unless, of course, they are famous and popular like OJ Simpson. Famous people can get the benefit of the doubt unavailable to the average person.
