Advantages And Disadvantages Of The Oj Simpson Trial

2350 Words5 Pages

In this paper I will be analyzing two trials, the O.J. Simpson trial and the Oscar Pistorius trial. The O.J. Simpson trial by jury was conducted in California, while Oscar Pistorius’s trial by judge was conducted in South Africa. Both criminal cases dealt with high profile athletes whom were accused of murder. Public opinion on both cases disagreed with the final verdict. In order to fully understand if one system is more effective in reaching the goal of justice. We must look at how judges are selected in each system as well as how criminal cases are conducted in each geographical area. In California, the defendant was found not guilty by a jury, while in South Africa the defendant was found guilty by the judge. I will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a court trial and a trial by judge. In the context of the O.J. Simpson trial and the Oscar Pistorius trial, we are left with one question is one system more efficient in reaching justice?
In …show more content…

However, when put into context with both criminal cases, whether justice is served can be determined. In the O.J. Simpson trial, holding a trial by jury benefited the defendant not justice. The defense team was able to convince the jury into believing that he was not guilty using emotional appeal. This verdict of this case shocked the American people who were not swayed by the defense and looked strictly at the incriminating evidence that determined O.J. was the murderer (Pitts, 199). However this could not have been said for the jury who ignored the facts and voted on the basis of race. Because of existing racism in the United States and distrust in rulings against African Americans, bias existed within the black jurors. While America knew O.J. Simpson was guilty of murder, the trial by jury failed to bring forth justice. For that reason, this case became historical because it demonstrated the failure of the court system (Lassiter,

Open Document