What Is Wrong In The State Of Simpsons

In 1995, The People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, became the “most publicized murder case in history” (Price & Lovitt, 1997). From the very beginning, it seemed that the prosecution’s case against O. J. Simpson for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman was doomed to fail. There were inconsistencies in how the Los Angeles Police Department collected and preserved of evidence. They were also called into doubt about how they controlled the evidence and who they let have access to the evidence during

Law enforcement in today’s time is known for discrimination and brutality. However, there are times when the police are known to even wrongfully arrest, try, and convict those who have not committed any crimes. Even though law enforcement and the legal system may seem like a secure and infallible entity/force, those that serve the justice system are not always serving justice. The case of Sean K. Ellis is a case of mistaken arrest. Ellis was arrested for the murder of a Boston police officer, convicted, and approximately served 22 years in prison for a crime that he did not commit. The topics of racial bias, credibility of witnesses, exclusion/lack of evidence, and police corruption, are the some of the factors that affected Ellis’s case.

The ESPN series “O.J.: Made in America” is a documentary of the notable rise and fall of Orenthal James (O.J.) Simpson, which captivated the nation and is still discussed today [over 20 years later]. Simpson’s life story and infamous 1994 double-homicide acquittal is paralleled with race relations, and the criminal justice system in Los Angeles in the decades leading up to the “trial of the century”. The main objective of the documentary does not seem determine whether Simpson is ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’, but rather to consider the effect of racial issues in the U.S. criminal justice system that how they played into the trial. While the documentary primary leads to, and surrounds the infamous trial, it also illustrates the concepts and ideals of the country that both made and destroyed him.

This essay is purposed for the evaluation of the provocative case, The State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, more commonly referred to as O.J. Simpson. On the 12th of June, 1994 the homicide of Nicole Simpson, O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife, occurred at her home. Reports of a body sprawled out the front of Nicole Simpson’s house were made through a 911 call. On arrival, police made the discovery of Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman’s dead bodies outside the house. The review of this investigation will be achieved through; Assessment of the key aspects of the process of investigation. Evaluation of the main investigative flaws made throughout the investigation. Identifying strategies to prevent these flaws from happening in

The reason The Simpsons has been able to continue over so many years and seasons are because the programme is animated. In real time, of course, Bart Simpson would by now be almost 40 years old, and Homer and Marge would be in their 60s. Animation allows the characters to be preserved in a timeless bubble where no one has to get older. Bart and Lisa are frozen in the fourth and second grades, and Maggie is still yet to talk. Animation also allows for an entirely flexible setting that is evident in the way the Simpsons’ home town of Springfield is endlessly malleable. Depending on the needs of the episode, Springfield has mountains, a harbour, a beach, can be freezing cold or suffer from an extreme heatwave, and can also have been simultaneously

This case is one that changed the way the United States Police forces will work forever. Every human in the world has natural born rights. Even people who have been arrested have rights, ‘The rights of the accused’. These rights are the main point of this court case.

The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the

The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.

On June 12, 1994, the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were found dead at her home in Brentwood, CA. Orenthal James Simpson, or O.J. Simpson was notified of their deaths and immediately taken into custody for questions. Upon the collection of various pieces of evidence from the crime scene, all avenues pointed to Simpson as the culprit for the double murder. The conclusion of Simpson criminal trial resulted in his acquittal. There were various reasons for this acquittal. The most prominent reasons include accusations of racism, evidence contamination, and the lack of faith in DNA profiling. This paper will discuss the issues that arose with the trial in depth and offer an explanation and solution to resolving issues

Discretion in policing and the court system is a necessary and unavoidable facet of criminal justice work, yet it is still very controversial. Discretion exists when courtroom actors (police officers, attorneys, judges) have the flexibility to choose an appropriate response to a situation. Police discretion is defined as “The opportunity of law enforcement officers to exercise choice in their daily activities” (Nowacki, 2015). This means that actors with a great deal of discretion at their disposal may allow biases to affect their decision-making. These decisions lead to important implications throughout the criminal justice process, especially in the courtroom. The process begins with the decision to arrest by a law enforcement officer in the field. Once the case is forwarded to the prosecuting attorney, multifarious avenues of discretionary decisions are available to resolve a case. Potential issues that could arise and that are ever-present in everyday policing include racism, sexism and socialism (Miller, 2015). These issues ultimately have a negative affect on the criminal justice process, leading civilians to not trust the one process and actors that are there to help them. While discretion should play a role in the actions a courtroom actor takes and cannot be eliminated entirely, instead it should be limited and controlled throughout the criminal justice environment so that citizens can once again trust the process and so that there will be no disparities.

When one thinks of police misconduct many not too distant stories might go through our heads. Most adults will remember how they felt when they saw the brutal beating of Rodney King on their local news station; or the outrage they experienced when they heard that the evidence in the OJ Simpson trial had been tampered with. But thanks to new guidelines, procedures and even civilian groups who now “police” the police, instances of police misconduct may soon start seeing a decline.

The OJ Simpson murder case was an event that transfixed the nation over 20 years ago, with everyone who was around back then having some recollection of the whole ordeal. Today, that same case in entering back into the public consciousness, as a new television series dramatizing the events, entitled “The People vs. OJ Simpson”, just premiered. In an op-ed for the New York Times, John McWhorter pens an argument that the case was symbolic of race relations between the police and the African-American community. McWhorter, an African-American, goes into detail about how he did not understand why his community was cheering back in 1995 about Simpson being acquitted. McWhorter even believed that Simpson was guilty. However, he does now

The courts become an important source of control in two ways. First, the courts are used to assess the appropriateness of many longstanding police practices and procedures through legal challenges. Second, both individual officers and their governing entities are increasingly subject to civil and criminal liability for unreasonable actions, policies, and practices (Alpert, 2004). By restricting police use of deadly

When debating the issue of police use of force, the issue of what actions constitute too much force must also be addressed. Another concern is the possibility of corruption amount officers. When given such great power, the probability of corruption is high. Officers generally do not start out as corrupt, but years of work on the force can create animosity between officers and suspects and lead them to decide to use force more quickly (McEwen, 1996). Many times, officers patrol the streets alone which creates the opportunity for potential abuse of power (McEwen, 1996). Although police officers need to be permitted to exercise some discretion, they also need limits and guidelines to follow when using their powers of discretion (Manning, 1997). The decision to use force should not be taken lightly in that citizen’s lives are at stake. Police should be allowed discretion in decisions to use force; however, this discretion should be limited. In several cases in Arizona, officers have used deadly means of force. In all cases, the officers

The O. J. Simpson double murder case, also titled “People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson was a trial in which James O.J Simpson, a former National Football League player was convicted at the Los Angeles County Superior Court of two murder offenses on June 12, 1994. He was accused of killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, a restaurant waiter at Mezzaluna. The trial spans for a period of eight months. The opening statements were read on January 23, 1995, whereas the verdict, which left Simpson a free man, was declared on October 3, 1995. “The Trial of The Century,” as it is commonly known, has been described as the most publicized trial in history. However, before Simpson could be arrested and prosecuted, they had to go through an investigation process with the implementation of some techniques used by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) as this essay illustrates.