O.J. Simpson and the Election of 2008

The latest turn in the ongoing saga of O.J. Simpson has been the topic of conversation of talk shows and water coolers all over the country. The former professional-football-player-turned-ad-spokesman-turned-actor-turned-murder-suspect was recently found guilty of twelve charges in the robbery trial which may result in Simpson spending the rest of his life in jail.

Many see the guilty verdict as “payback” for the Simpson’s acquittal thirteen years earlier in the so-called “trial of the century” which found him facing murder charges for the death of his estranged wife Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman. Emotions run high among Simpson supporters and critics and both sides are zealous in their opinions.

It is the emotional factor that should not play into the decision of a jury. Jurors must use rational thought, weighing the information and testimony presented to them before they make their final decision.

What critics of the first decision fail to realize, however, is that the jury in the first trial had to deal with shoddy police work and the brilliance of O.J. Simpson’s defense team that made mincemeat of the prosecution, headed by Marsha Clark.

There was no way that the twelve deciding O.J.'s fate trial could come away with more than an acquittal.Of course, the subsequent “civil trial” found him guilty but that, sort of, negated both procedures.

How could one be innocent of the murder charges but found guilty of the civil indictment???

On a personal level, I served on a rape case jury once. During the trial proceedings, the twelve of us had to listen to the testimony of investigators that had so many holes in them through which one could drive several eighteen-wheelers. When the judge dismissed us to deliberate, we had to debate the facts and come to a fair and honest judgment of the accused’s fate. Though our “gut” told us that the guy was guilty as sin, we couldn’t convict him because the evidence just wasn’t convincing; thus, he was acquitted.

Rational thought supersedes emotions any day...or, at least, it should.

Now, we are just a few weeks away from the Presidential election and the media, both print and electronic, are filled with last ditch efforts by both the Democratic and Republican camps to portray their opposition as being ill-suited to be the “leader of the free world.” Both sides are appealing to voters’ emotions by dwelling on basic fears and apprehensions rather on logic and suitability to occupy the office.

If one only votes based on emotional “facts,” he is deciding between a Presidential candidate who is the-older-conservative-Vietnam-vet-that-can’t-use-a-computer-who-wants-to-nuke-Iran senior senator from Arizona or the Hussein-as-his-middle-name-with-liberal-leanings-that-wants-to-sit-down-for-coffee-and-donuts-with-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad junior senator from Illinois.

The Vice-presidential half has also been the target of insinuation and innuendo as well. Which is best, the gun-toting-baby-making-eye-winking-soccer-mom-governor of Alaska or the-long-in-the-tooth-speaker-that-earlier--said-condescending-words-about-his-running-mate senator from Delaware?

So emotionally charged have the accusations been on both sides that the campaign has been the subject of parody on all the network comedy shows, with Tina Fey’s dead-on impersonation of Sarah Palin being one of the best.

But, we must realize that the office of President belongs to the individual that can best lead the country and the one that can perform best on the world stage.

We, as voters, are like jurors. We must take the FACTS, not the SUPPOSITIONS, and rationally make our choice in the voting booth.We should not be misdirected by supporters with ulterior motives or critics that have personal axes to grind.

Voting is a personal and private decision and should stay as such.Let’s vote wisely and remain non-judgmental.

If we do that, then the BEST man or woman will be sworn in come January.