ABSTRACT
It was like balancing a scale, picking up every weight in hopes to find equivalence on both sides. The goal was to appropriately deliver justice, to evaluate the culpable individual, and to objectively cast blame. The murder of Nicole Brown Simpson was the precursor to one of the longest criminal trials held in California. Orenthal James Simpson – husband of Nicole – was tried, police had accumulated enough physical evidence to render him culpable. Simpson’s DNA matched that found on items at the crime scene, he had no alibi, and was arrested in what appeared to be a ‘getaway attempt’. Ultimately, a verdict was reached of ‘not guilty’ on both murder charges. The question I attempt to answer is: ‘What Tipped Scale in Simpson’s Favor?’.
I plan on constructing a ‘scale of justice’. There will be weights of different sizes that will signify different components that go into rendering a person guilty – with a specific focus on Simpson’s case. Race, emotion, crime, environment and jury will all have a different weight. The weight will be left to my subjective opinion in terms of what tipped the scale in Simpson’s favor. This will be another component to consider in terms of whether or not objectivity is possible. I will display this in a video with sound, to visualize the actual tipping scale.
Simulation studies have given results confirming a “Black racism” hypothesis where Black jurors favor Black over White defendants. Simpson was tried in front of a majority Black jury, which some say may have played a role in his final verdict. This is contradictory to the stereotypes that most often lead to increased criminalization of men due to being Black. What weight does race provide in tipping the scale of justice? What other weights do we consider when delivering ‘justice’? Do we give them the same magnitude of weight? We cannot ignore the variety of weights that contribute to the scale. We must consider social status (Simpson as a well-known NFL star), emotional state (Simpson’s feelings towards his wife and their split), criminal history (reported regular abuse of his wife) and environment (elevated social status). In terms of emotion, in the absence of cognitive defects, it is usually not sufficient to satisfy the law. However, this case becomes impacted not by the emotions of the accused party but by the effectiveness of the appeal to the emotions of the jury. What weight do the issuers of justice hold? Can we trust them to be truly objective?
PROJECT
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPcV1vOpA7v6eppxQWkaGG_XZzSatZTsm-2dHjtemFeQUDnqj-dMT9u5Nczf2nvkA?key=dFVQLXhBd0dtRS0tM1I3TVFRWkM4OWF6eVlsc2NB
REFERENCES
“O.J. Simpson Acquitted.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, November 24, 2009. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/o-j-simpson-acquitted.
Skolnick, Paul, and Jerry I Shaw. “The O. J. Simpson Criminal Trial Verdict: Racism or Status Shield?” Journal of social issues. 53, no. 3 (1997): 503–516.
Hinton, Elizabeth, and DeAnza Cook. “The mass criminalization of Black Americans: A historical overview.” Annual Review of Criminology 4 (2021): 261-286.
Coppola, Federica. The emotional brain and the guilty mind: novel paradigms of culpability and punishment. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021.
Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2021). Objectivity. Princeton University Press.