o.j., o.j., o.j.
There are several things that fascinate me about this country, and I don't necessarily mean that in a good way. For example, how can people think "defining marriage" belongs in the Constitution? How can war be the solution to our problems at home?
And what's up with the whole double jeopardy thing?
I'm sure everybody knows by now about O.J. Simpson's book and interview, "If I Did It." How could anyone miss that whole controversy? Well, if you were hiking the Appalachian Trail last week, the idea was that O.J. was going to publish a book in the same week as a two-part interview on Fox. In print and on TV, he was supposedly going to describe the murders of his ex-wife and her friend. The publisher dubbed it "his confession."
When the American people got wind of this, there was such an outcry that the parent company of Fox and the publisher canceled both book and TV special. They said it would be profiting from the deaths of innocent people (of course, don't networks and publishers do that all the time?). They said it was wrong and disgusting, that it was as if O.J. were saying, "Neener neener neener, I got away with it!"
And there was nothing anyone could do about it, except to boycott the companies who advertised during the special or stop buying books from ReganBooks, neither of which is very satisfying, especially if you don't normally buy ReganBooks publications. It wouldn't affect O.J. in the slightest.
The thing is, it's the double jeopardy that made people so mad. O.J. could have -- and still could -- come out with a complete confession, and he couldn't be tried again for the murders. Since high school Mock Trials participation rarely counts, I'll admit I'm no legal expert. But can't there be some kind of change to double jeopardy? Can't it be something like, "No one can be tried for the same crime twice unless they're acquitted and they later confess"?
Then everybody would be happy. Except, maybe, O.J. But I doubt people care much about that.