The O.J. Simpson case is one of the most publicized legal criminal trials, which is evident as the events of the proceedings have highlighted multiple aspects correlating with the US jurisdiction. Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman were found stabbed to death, and most of the evidence was pointed out at Simpson’s husband, O.J. Simpson (Shapiro & Warren, 2019). However, Simpson was acquitted of both murders despite the fact that the circumstances of the killing aligned with the idea that he was the murderer. One of the reasons why the suspect was released for punishment and only punished through a civil court was the mistakes of the police officers working on the case, such as failure to collect sufficient evidence and preserve the collected contents later. In this case, it is essential to reflect on whether justice can be served when police misconduct creates circumstances in which major crimes have resorted to civil options.
Police misconduct has often facilitated disruptions in legal processes. On the one hand, such events prevent justice from being served. Thus, innocent people may serve sentences for crimes they did not commit, while actual criminals may be released from police custody. This does not qualify as justice, as the work of the detectives directly affects the subsequent case that will be reviewed by the judge and jurors. A lack of evidence or its disruption as a result of the mistakes of those collecting and preserving it may illustrate a different picture to those deciding the fate of the suspect. As a result, it can be stated that in case crimes are not judged to the extent of their seriousness are not adequately addressed. Thus, both from a legal and ethical perspective, the victims and their loved ones cannot receive the justice they deserve under US law.
It is essential to mention the importance of the effects of police misconduct on the families of the victims as well as society in general. Hence, it is vital to highlight how officers who are either not diligent about their work or purposefully go against the legislative background of the system they are to obey disrupt social and ethical values. However, it would be helpful to add that even though O.J. Simpson was to give the sum to the family of his former wife, they never received the 33,5 million dollars. Thus, justice was again not served despite the legal proceedings leading to this verdict. In this case, the circumstances highlight a more complex view of the unfairness of the trials. On the one hand, the parents did not see the person who murdered their daughter in prison. On the other hand, even after proving O.J.’s involvement, they could not receive what was awarded to them by the court.
It was also useful to mention that the police officers whose work minimizes the serving of justice are to be punished with suspensions or prison time. As a result, such cases will not repeat themselves, and the system will be more inclined to benefit the victims and their loved ones rather than influential criminals and police officers directly responsible for their lack of punishment. Another recommendation can be to increase education and training, as while certain cases of misconduct, such as the aforementioned incidents aimed against black men, are grounded in discrimination, others are a result of poor training. In the case of O.J. Simpson, the officers failed to collect and preserve evidence. Thus, an improvement in this domain may lead to the servitude of justice in the long term.
Shapiro, R. L., & Warren, L. (2019). The search for justice: A defense attorney’s brief on the O.J. Simpson case. Graymalkin Media.