I was half-asleep when I first heard this morning’s NPR story on today’s sentencing following O.J. Simpson’s conviction on robbery, assault and kidnapping charges. In my drowsy state, I thought the piece was being somewhat sympathetic to O.J., arguing that a 6 years-to-life sentence is too harsh. Reading the story again, I’m not necessarily convinced otherwise:
Even Simpson’s own lawyers say he was stupid to attempt the robbery. But defense attorney David Figler, a former Las Vegas municipal judge, says 18 years for someone with no prior convictions is over the top. “Given all the circumstances and what we have to accept as the lack of criminal history of all the parties involved,” Figler says, “probation would always be on the table, or something along the lines of one or two years.”
….No one was injured, and even the two victims have said it was all a mistake. So why was Simpson prosecuted so harshly?
“I don’t know,” Figler says. “I don’t know, other than who wants to be the one who let O.J. go again.”
Not the prosecutors in Clark County, Nev.
Maybe I’m just too eager to find bias in NPR’s reporting.
