Advantages And Disadvantages Of The Oj Simpson Trial

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

California, the formal qualifications to become a judge are kept to a minimum in order to ensure an expansive selection. The California constitution states that prior to election or appointment, the candidate must be at least twenty-six and have five years of experience in the field of law. The candidate must be a citizen, a resident for the minimum of 5 years in the district he or she wishes to serve (Cook, 50). The governor will appoint a judge, he or she sees is fit with the consent of a third party. The Commission on Judicial Appointment must approve the governor’s pick (Cook, 53). Once approved by the commission, the candidate will then run in a non-partisan election where the voters will determine if they will be elected. However, not all potential judges face elections. In California, selection of judges is a combination of appointments by a government official and/or the voter’s choice (Cook, 54).
In South Africa, the new judicial system is aiming toward appointing judges to make the judiciary diverse and representative of social needs. The Judicial Services Commission is now in charge of appointments, when a vacancy opens they will pick from a list of potential candidates. The Judicial Services Commission includes the minister of justice, the chief justice, single judge president, the legal academy, members of society and the legal profession. A subcommittee alongside the JSC will review the list of candidates. Each candidate turns in an application with questions to determine their eligibility along with a consent form and résumé. After the short list is reviewed, candidates will then be subject to a interview by the Judicial Services Commission (Andrews, 566).
In California, candidates must be known by the governor (Cook, 50). It is noted that in both the U.S. and South Africa, judges’ political views match the current political party in control and/or share same political views as the government official who appointed them. In South Africa, judges are appointed on the basis of their commitment to the new Constitution, their experience and good standing in society (Andrews, 566). There is judicial hierarchy in the current system, whereas judges promote based on experience and current position held. Some judges in California, have had reputations of siding with special interest groups; acting as spokesmen or activists (Cook, 59). While judges in South Africa have been criticized in the past for upholding the racist status quo of whites being superior (Weiss, 6). Both California and South Africa have moved toward a judiciary that is representative of the society in regards of ethnic diversity by appointing more women and minorities.
In California, the prosecutor will decide to file charges against the accused (Rutledge, 109). The prosecution and defense must agree to waive a jury trial in order to have a court trial (Rutledge, 208). The prosecutor will then present his opening statement, the defense will present their counter argument and then the prosecutor will present his closing statement (Rutledge, 223). The jury will then deliberate the case. The jury must reach a unanimous decision and return to the court hearing to present the final verdict (Rutledge, 226).
In South Africa, a warrant is needed to arrest an individual being accused of a crime. The detainee will be informed of their arrest as well as their right to not answer any questions without their lawyer. In cases of murder, assault, indecent assault, rape and robbery; the case will be heard a magistrate judge along with a panel of lay assessors (Bureau of Democracy, 5). The Judge will then hear the defense and he or she can offer an agreement, which is similar to a plea bargain. If agreement is not met then they will forward with the trial where judge will hear the case and examine evidence presented. The Judge will then determine if the defendant is guilty and will sentence them.
Criminal cases in California and South Africa are very similar and the main difference is in who hears the case. Both court systems include the right to a fair trial and to representation. In California, the defense and the prosecution must agree to waive the jury, while in South Africa this is not an option. In South Africa, the judge does not need to consult or take into account anyone’s opinion on the ruling, they can receive advice from the panel, however are not forced to. The criminal procedures in both sovereign entities are similar in structure.
On July 18, 1994, the preliminary hearing determined that O.J. Simpson would stand trial for two accounts of first-degree murder. O.J. Simpson trial was to be held in the Superior Court in Los Angeles where Judge Lance Ito was assigned to hear this case (Linder, 1). Simpson pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecutor presented evidence and testimonies to demonstrate that O.J. killed his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson because he was possessive and jealous. According to the prosecutor who called on many family members, Simpson physically abused his wife and killed her and her friend Ronald Goldman because of jealousy (Linder, 2). O.J. Simpson's defense states that he could not have pulled off two murders because of his critical condition of arthritis. Ultimately, the jury was to determine whether O.J. Simpson was guilty of two accounts of first-degree murder. After only a couple of hours of deliberation the jury found Simpson not guilty and he was able to walk a free man (Linder, 5).
Oscar Pistorius trial took place in South Africa, where he faced criminal charges and was to have a trial by judge. Oscar Pistorius was brought to court on the charges of murder; he was accused of killing his girlfriend Sheeva Steenkamp. The defense argued that Pistorius did not mean to kill her; he believed there was an intruder in his home. According to his attorney, Pistorius could not be the heartless killer they were accusing him of being. On the basis that he was now suffering from PTSD which was the result of his grievance (Mohamed, 6). Judge Masipa found Pistorius guilty of culpable murder and sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment. However, Pistorius only served 10 months in jail and then was released under correctional supervision for the rest of his sentence.
For this paper, I selected these criminal cases because they both dealt with high profile athletes whom were accused of killing their significant other. Both O.J. Simpson and Oscar Pistorius were not found guilty of these charges. O.J. Simpson’s trial took place in California where a jury determined the final verdict. Oscar Pistorius’s trial on the other hand, was in South Africa where the verdict was determined by a judge. Public opinion stated that both of these individuals were thought to be guilty, however the system failed justice. Let us examine the advantages and disadvantages of trials by juries and judges. The literature discussed brings forth arguments for and against each system.
The jury is viewed as a necessary democratic principle, the jury gives the governed people power in the judicial process (Weiss, 2). The jury is thought as an imperative protection against an unjust conviction by a judge (Rutledge, 209). According to Weiss, jurors can be expected to be impartial because they are only serving this particular case and do not have any precedents to take into consideration. Allowing jurors to make the final verdict is representative of the community’s values. Having a jury system is also fundamental to legitimizing the court system, people need to feel that they have a say in the system (Weiss, 5). The purpose of the court is to mete out justice and the jury system plays a big role in ensuring justice. Additionally, having the jury deliberate the verdict, allows judges to have time to deal with matters of upcoming cases they are to hear (Janata, 593). According to Janata, the time to deliberate in jury trials and court trials are equivalent, it is not accurate to say that jury trials take longer.
The United States is often criticized for their jury system because of the jurors’ lack of comprehension in intricate cases. There is also noted racism in South Africa juries because the challenges made by the defense to take remove certain jurors because of their ethnicity. Another issue brought to perspective is the ability of jurors’ decisions to be swayed by monetary compensation (Weiss, 4). The jury system is criticized for slowing down the justice system due to the fact that the deliberation process within the jurors is time consuming (Janata, 590). Having a jury system is also costly, as the number of criminal cases increase, more funds are needed to pay for the juries that are to serve in those cases (Janata, 592).
Judges are considered to be more qualified and experienced than jurors (Janata, 590). The prosecutor might choose to waive a jury trial in order to save money and time. Having a judge make the final decision will be speedier because there is no chance of a retrial. For example having juror split 10-2, and then a retrial will need to take place (Rutledge, 209). Judges have extensive experience, therefore are more qualified to make a decision of guilty or not guilty because they are able to recognize a fabricated defense. Additionally a court trial gives privacy to the defendant who might wish not wish to share the charges because of fear of humiliation or embarrassment (Rutledge, 209).
Critics have viewed the South Africa’s judicial system as problematic because judges tend to be bias and racist (Weiss, 6). If we remove the jury system, and move to strictly court trials, then the system will be ineffective because this will only increase the workload of judges. The amount of cases increases each year, however the government is not increasing judgeships or expanding the courts. Therefore, moving to solely court trials will not benefit judges or society (Janata, 594). There is also no factual evidence that a judge is better suited to determine a verdict than jurors are (Janata, 596).
One can conclude that both systems have advantages and disadvantages.

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,

824).
In the case of Pistorius, the defense was not able to sway the judge into believing that Pistorius was innocent. The defense argued that because Pistorius was suffering from PTSD from grievance, he could not be the cold stone killer of his girlfriend. The Judge was able to see past the defense because PTSD was not a factor in whether he killed or mistakenly shot her. Therefore he was found guilty of culpable homicide (Mohamed, 9). Conversely, the Judge was lenient and only gave Pistorius 5 years where he could have faced fifteen years imprisonment. In this particular case the accused was found guilty, however justice was not served. Oscar Pistorius served only 10 months and then was on house arrest. Judge Masipa was critiqued for her ruling, the judge ignored evidence that undeniably demonstrated that Pistorius was guilty (Commey, 37). In this trial by jury, justice was not fully served; Oscar Pistorius received the minimum sentencing and served one-sixth of his term incarcerated.
Based upon the research conducted it is inconclusive whether a trial by jury or trial by judge is more effective in serving justice. In both cases, justice was not met or served. Whether it argued that one system is more efficient, in the end Pistorius and Simpson were able to get away with murder. Having a jury in the O.J. Simpson trial failed the court system. While the mis ruling of the judge in the Oscar Pistorius trial failed to mete out justice. Whether it is argued that having a court trial is more time efficient or that having a jury is a democratic principle. It can be noted that there exists flaws in both systems. A man made system will never be perfect, but there is always room for improvement. So that cases such as the O.J. Simpson trial and the Oscar Pistorius trial can be served justice in the first trial. The court system is not measured on the basis of how quickly verdicts are served, but more so on whether justice is truly served (Janata, 592).