Actually the OJ verdict was a sign that the jury system is working exactly as intended. "Better 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent be found guilty". Those are very important words about our system. When the prosecution does THAT bad a job presenting the evidence the jury should rule not guilty. Our system is designed to err on the side of freedom, quite deliberately. This has some pretty annoying repercusions, but it's better than the Napoleonic system any day.
First off, I'm pleased to see the Court again this week strike a blow against the death penalty, although I'm not sure that I think this was the proper vehicle in which to do so. I guess I shouldn't complain.
What strikes me as more interesting about today, however, is the Court's ruling in Harris v. US, in which the Courts approved the practice of allowing judges to lengthen prison sentences if a gun was used in the commission of a crime, even if the defendant hasn't been convicted of any charge specifically involving the weapon (my emphasis).
Do these two opinions seem at all at odds with one another, or is it just me. What am I missing? The ruling in Harris was 5-4, and a bizarre mix of folks, including Scalia and the Chief in the majority, with Thomas, Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter in the dissenters. Seems exactly backwards of what one might expect!
Thoughts?