O.J. Simpson & Justice

Ok, so I'm a backissues reader. My wife cringes every time I subscribe to a new magazine or journal because it means that magazines will pile up only to slowly diminish during periods of vacation. I rarely get any publication read before the next issue arrives. I usually don't even get one opened before the next issue arrives.

So, today's commentary is in reaction to a story in U.S. News & World Report from June 14, 2004. On page 78 I found an open letter about the anniversary of the O.J. Simpson trial entitled "A case that may life forever" by Betsy Streisand. I didn't really take issue with the author's main ideas. However, my emotional hackels arose when I read a few specific lines.

Ms. Streisand quotes Earl Ofari Hutchinson: "If you were to poll people today, the results would be just what they were 10 years ago: Whites thought O.J. got away with murder. Blacks either thought he was framed or that he was guilty but they didn't care." Ms. Streisand follows up with a quote from Desiree Gill: "We all know he did it, but we're glad he got off. Finally a little justice for the underdog."

Apparently, the working definiton of justice according to these statements is: "to be judged innocent, even if one is guilty." Compare this definition to the classical definition of justice: "to give to each person what is due to him or her." If O.J. was guilty, justice would have been for him to pay restitution for his crime. Gill's quote might more accurately be: "Finally a little revenge for the underdog." Revenge and justice are not the same thing. Justice is balm for the wound. Revenge is poison.

Now, I am well aware of the racial injustices of our past. Our history is littered with court cases, such as the case for the murder of Emmett Till, in which white people who murdered black people were found innocent. It is also littered with cases in which black people were erroneously found guilty for murder or rape. These cases were travesties of justice because politics, perceptions, prejudices, and stereotypes replaced facts, reasoning, and honest search for the truth.

Is justice served just because the roles are reversed? Have we sacrificed one fundamental human good for the sake of another? Like Alan Paton says in his book Cry, the Beloved Country: "I am afraid that once the Whites finally learn to love, we will have learned to hate." Have we sacrificed justice for the sake of human dignity? We need to work for the recognition of human dignity for all people. However, if we sacrifice the virtues of our dignity we will find that in the end we also sacrifice our dignity.

The coup de gras to my emotional vulnerability was a quotation from Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz. Ms. Streisand begins: "And with a criminal verdict in favor of O.J. and a civil one against him, the case also proved what lawyers have long known: 'that a trial is not a search for the turth,' says Dershowitz. A search for truth is exactly what a trial is supposed to be. In fact, the discipline of reasoning has its roots in law trials.

We need to start thinking again. While I never advocate the skeptic credo of "ask questions for the sake of the challenge," we definitely need to begin asking the right questions. What role does justice truly play in our legal system? Why is it not playing that role? How can we fix the system to ensure that it does?

Pessimists say that there is no way to change a system gone wrong. However, any system can be changed once we realize that the system is made up of individuals. Any change to a system must begin with a change of hearts and minds of the people that form the community. Let's apply our God-given intellect and reclaim true justice!

In the love of Christ,

Brother Thomas