O.J Simpson Case

O.J Simpson Case

Introduction

The gruesome murder of Simpson’s ex-wife and the hotel attendant (Nicole and Ronald) caught the attention of the public for years. The crime was not the first in the history of America, but media attention elevated the case into the ‘crime of the century.’ The handling of the case and the ruling made the situation even more exciting than how the crime was committed. After the murder of Nicole and Ronald, the events leading to the arrest of Simpson attracted live media coverage, which attracted millions of viewers (Brown 33). The failure of Simpson to surrender despite being notified by the police to surrender led to a follow-up by police that was televised by numerous media houses. This paper seeks to analyze various issues that emerged in the infamous O.J Simpson Case with the main focus being on the media coverage of the event. The paper posits that the media overdid their coverage and overstepped on their mandate. The paper points out that media coverage should be censored (by media house owners) to reduce the possibility of interfering with the process of legal pursuit of suspects.

Body

Simpson’s arrest attracted considerable attention from media, with some media groups airing the arrest from aerial view using helicopters. Notably, Simpson was not an ordinary citizen. He was known for his involvement and awards he won in the sports. Simpson’s popularity created a following that could provoke the public into demonstrations demanding his release. The media coverage was inappropriate, especially regarding the magnitude with which the incidence was covered (Bruinsma and David 335). Televising a live coverage of the police pursuit for the arrest of Simpson aggravated the case in a myriad of ways. Firstly, the coverage attracted public opinion and judgment. Notably, the celebrity of Simpson was bound to attract aggression amongst his supporters. The media coverage mobilized supporters who later led demonstrations demanding for his release.

Secondly, media coverage interfered with the process of investigation. The media houses shared critical information to the public that was meant for the prosecution process. The case was a high-level crime that called for serious investigations with the least public interference possible. The involvement of the media gave different versions of narrations about the murder incidence. The varied versions created divided expectations both in public and the defendant. The spread of information about the murder brought about conflict of interest as the public and the defendant (Brown 179). The reliance on different versions of arguments brought about the challenge of determining the real events that occurred in the fateful moment when Nicole and Ronald were murdered. The proceedings were prolonged and mired with the setting of specifications on the evidence required to convict Simpson.

Thirdly, over coverage of the crime interfered with the privacy of both Simpson and the victims. Agreeably, it is essential and within the law, for media houses to inform the public about matters occurring in the society. However, the significance and law do not permit the media houses to overstep their mandate (Bruinsma and David 454). The coverage interfered with the right to privacy of the people involved in the case. The life of Simpson became a topic of discussion in public and judged according to the opinion of the masses. It was unlawful for the court proceedings to be discussed outside the court. The demand for the release of Simpson by his followers was evidence lawlessness that characterized the sharing of information of court proceedings. The demand for release meant that the public had details about the incidence and had a formed opinion that Simpson was innocent. The attention given to the case by media created interest in the public of wanting to know Nicole and Ronald deeply. The dubbing of the incidence as the ‘crime of the century’ was catalyzed interference of the public with the private information of Simpson, Nicole, and Ronald.

Fourthly, media coverage led to administration of injustice. Agreeably, the acquittal of Simpson caught the public and other interested parties by surprise. The argument that the gloves must fit his hands precisely was not adequate to make the sentence. The court rubbished other more incriminating evidence like the bloodstains found in his possession. The delays in the court proceedings were brought by heightened public interest. The delays also tampered with the collection of evidence and determination of the most significant evidence to incriminate Simpson (Brown 69). African Americans lauded the acquittal of Simpson while the whites perceived it as an injustice. The scenario depicts the racial perceptions created through excessive attention given to the case by the media. The ‘public pressure’ contributed immensely to the acquittal. A few months later, Simpson was found guilty of the crimes.

Conclusion

Law enforcement and legal procedures represent an intriguing aspect of society. The court proceedings, in many ways, display a battle of wits more than the administration of justice. The external factors of a case may, in numerous instances, fail to be considered as significant, yet they contribute immensely in influencing the sentence. The government must formulate better policies that govern the media involvement in criminal investigations proceedings to ensure justice is served.