The Truth About the American Justice System

No one is denying that the racial composition of the different juries affected the outcome of the case and shows the difference in opinions held by black and white America. However, the racial makeup of the juries and OJ's high priced lawyers were not the sole reasons why the criminal case resulted in an acquittal. The criminal and civil trials were held in different localities. (Los Angeles and Brentwood) Also, juries are chosen from the voter registration roles, thus Los Angeles, with a higher minority population, is more likely to produce a predominately minority jury than the affluent, mostly white city of Brentwood. The county prosecutors office made a conscious choice to hold the criminal trial in Los Angeles because they wanted to get a conviction from a jury that was mainly composed of minorities. Thus Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden were at a disadvantage from the start. Also, in the criminal trial, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. With testimony from the likes of Mark Fuhrman, the prosecution was not able to do this. In a civil case however, there is no reasonable doubt clause. All the plaintiff has to do is to plant a seed of guilt in the jury and they can convict on that seed of guilt. Those are the fundamental differences in the two cases, but there are others, such as the picture of the shoes and the fact that OJ testified in the civil trial and not in the criminal trial. All of these factors combined to produce differing outcomes. It was not, as Theo Haddad would have us believe, solely the composition of the juries that led to the different outcomes.

Many regard the civil trial to be a form of double jeopardy. This is false as well. The Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be "subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life of limb." Double jeopardy, as defined by the Constitution is to criminally try a person for the same crime. The Fifth Amendment is designed to prevent the government from trying the person again and again until they get a conviction. In the second trial, OJ was not being tried criminally, and was charged with wrongful death, not murder. Thus there is no double jeopardy.

Haddad writes of the civil trial that "the white American justice system had constructed another mechanism as a safety net in desperate situations. The civil trial for the 'wrongful deaths' of the two victims was the white man's 'trick up the sleeve.'" Never have I read such a completely misguided statement. One only has to look to the Rodney King case to see that this assertion is completely false. In that case, the federal government tried the policemen who beat King in a civil trial when they were not convicted in a criminal trial. Also in the late sixties and early seventies, the federal government would use civil trials to try southern whites accused of violating the civil rights of blacks when justice was not served in the state courts. From these examples, we can clearly see that the civil trial is not merely a safety net for white America which catches any case that falls through the cracks of a white dominated justice system.

Next, the author asserts that, "from its very inception, the American judicial system has protected the affluent and well connected and punished the poor and downcast." Did such cases as Brown v. Board, Gideon v. Wainright, and Miranda v. Arizona serve only to benefit the rich and affluent? Haddad goes on to write that "until all transpiration of injustice throughout American history are revived and rectified, then white America is in a position to complain about OJ never going to jail." I don't take issue with the part about OJ, but I do wonder how we are ever going to able to make progress when today's generation is constantly reliving and taking responsibility for events that took place two or three generations ago. It is a crime not to learn from the past, but it is also a crime to continually chain ourselves to the injustices of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers.