OJ making his case for parole

[_Jersey Girl]

A young acquaintance of mine here is currently in a medically induced coma with TBI. I think of his family, "good Christians" and think of him, their hardship, the strain they're all under. And I wonder...why him? Why does it have to be him?

It doesn't have to be him. Random things happen to random people at random times, randomly. There really isn't any need for any existential angst.

And yet, existential angst exists for many.

Little Charlie Gard over in the UK. The court system having assumed custody of the child, while the parents try to fight the battle of their life for his life, knowing that the outcome likely won't provide a miracle but still, they want a chance. All these folks criticizing them for their efforts. When they aren't in love with Charlie Gard.

"In love??" I think you mean, "when they don't love Charlie Gard."

I mean exactly what I said. "When they aren't in love with Charlie Gard". Exactly that.

Some small part of me (I lied, it's a big part of me) has a tendency to look at all of the above and wonder... why them? Why him? Why? Why couldn't it be OJ who has the brain tumor or TBI? Why isn't OJ desperate about his child? Why isn't OJ worried sick about his ability to access health care?

Because those things didn't randomly happen to that random person (i.e., O.J. Simpson) at this random time, randomly.

Yeah, I know. That was part of the point of my SOC post.

There are time when the world doesn't make sense to me in terms of justice . . .

Good, because the world doesn't make sense in terms of justice. There are only random events that happen to random people at random times, randomly. The sooner you accept that fact, the quicker your existential angst will end.

What are you talking about? I've accepted that fact most of my adult life. That doesn't mean one doesn't empathize with the plight of others in tragic circumstances. It's called compassion, Shades, and the desire for what we think of as justice.

and I think the only conclusion that I can reach is that the only thing we have any control over is doing justice to each other.

That is correct.

We need to have coffee and talk. But I'll drink tea.

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm sorry Jersey Girl, Gunnar is a bad influence on me and I could NOT resist. I don't really think you were ignoring my totality.

You're both at the top of my crap list right now. Go away!

[_Dr. Shades]

It doesn't have to be him. Random things happen to random people at random times, randomly. There really isn't any need for any existential angst.

And yet, existential angst exists for many.

But why does it exist for you, since you know the secret?

"In love??" I think you mean, "when they don't love Charlie Gard."

I mean exactly what I said. "When they aren't in love with Charlie Gard". Exactly that.

"In love" essentially means romantic love. So no, nobody is "in love" with Charlie Gard.

Because those things didn't randomly happen to that random person (i.e., O.J. Simpson) at this random time, randomly.

Yeah, I know. That was part of the point of my SOC post.

If that was part of the point of your stream-of-consciousness post, then why did you need to ask the questions, "Why them? Why him? Why? Why couldn't it be OJ who has the brain tumor or TBI? Why isn't OJ desperate about his child? Why isn't OJ worried sick about his ability to access health care?"

What are you talking about? I've accepted that fact most of my adult life. That doesn't mean one doesn't empathize with the plight of others in tragic circumstances. It's called compassion, Shades, and the desire for what we think of as justice.

If you've accepted the fact most of your adult life that there is no inherent justice in the world, how much desire do you have left for it?

[_Jersey Girl]

You back?

But why does it exist for you, since you know the secret?

Because I'm a living, breathing, feeling human being.

"In love" essentially means romantic love. So no, nobody is "in love" with Charlie Gard.

In the context of attachment and bonding, it doesn't "essentially" mean "romantic love". There's a whole world of definitions, phraseology and contexts out there. Why not explore it?

If that was part of the point of your stream-of-consciousness post, then why did you need to ask the questions, "Why them? Why him? Why? Why couldn't it be OJ who has the brain tumor or TBI? Why isn't OJ desperate about his child? Why isn't OJ worried sick about his ability to access health care?"

Because the questions were part of the inner monologue that I expressed.

If you've accepted the fact most of your adult life that there is no inherent justice in the world, how much desire do you have left for it?

Tons. Every time I empathize with the tragic plight of another human being.

[_Some Schmo]

OJ Simpson is asking for freedom and while I believe that he slaughtered the crap out of two human beings, I have to believe that he deserves a chance at redemption.

Unusual choice of phrasing. He was on trial for slaughtering the life out of two human beings. That's what "slaughtered" means. He was not on trial for giving them forced, involuntary enemas, though it is not unlikely that during the terror of being stabbed to death they lost all voluntary control of their bowel movements.

This thread is the quintessential crap show.

[_subgenius]

I know you old white guys always think the black guy is guilty, especially when they are rich and with a white woman....but why do you think he needs to?

You truly are a stupid Troll. I'm an old white male by accident of birth. What's your excuse for being an idiot.

my excuse? i suppose it is clear that my idiocy is nothing more than a manifestation of your inability to perceive simple facts and concepts.

A jury of his peers found him guilty of Armed Robbery.

ok, but that fact is not under dispute given his obvious appearance at a parole hearing

What pray tell is racist about him serving his full and complete sentence?

because, truly, you only want him serving the sentence because he is black and because you are not willing to accept the "fact" that he was acquitted of an earlier crime (which is ironic given your stated belief in "serving time" which implies that a consideration should be equally given for a person found innocent of a crime)

I say the same thing for any person of any skin color found guilty of a serious crime.

1. His crime was not so serious - ergo the parole hearing
2. you actually do not "say the same thing"... your comments are not a broad condemnation of this nation's parole system, but rather, they are quite narrow in scope and steeped in an event that should be irrelevant now.

"If you can't afford to do the time don't commit the crime."

glad to see you are a fan of Baretta (and how about the irony of you using a phrase made popular by Robert Blake)

but i agree with the sentiment, and while i am a firm believer that rhymes are the most convincing of arguments, it should be noted that with your modified expression you are conceding that one must be willing to surrender themselves to the judgment of the justice system in circumstances such as these...and that is exactly what is happening (er, already happened).

Your paraphrase can be expanded as - don't do the crime if you can't either do the time in a way that either makes you eligible for parole or in a way that gets your parole denied.

[_Chap]

truly, you only want him serving the sentence because he is black

I suspect not.

and because you are not willing to accept the "fact" that he was acquitted of an earlier crime

I suspect so.

Like many people, I think it very likely that this man did commit the murder of which he was acquitted in a criminal trial. While I agree that was certainly not a view that the parole board should have taken into consideration (and I hope it did not), I would not have regarded it as a major life priority to campaign for Simpson's early release if the parole decision had gone the other way.

[_The CCC]

What are you implying here CCC? That no criminals should ever be offered parole or a shortened sentence, regardless of how exemplary their behavior or their attempts to educate and improve themselves while in prison? Surely you are more compassionate and fair minded than that! Aren't you?

Nothing so dark. If someone doesn't want the consequences of committing a serious crime(Jail or Prison). They shouldn't commit the serious crime in the first place. I also believe many in prison are guilty of things that shouldn't be crimes, that they are sentenced for too long at time, that too little effort is put into rehabilitation after conviction. From what I understand Armed Robbery in Nevada can get someone 22 years in prison. We can discuss if that is too long or not. But I would expect anyone convicted of such to serve at least 3/4 of that time, and preferably the full legal sentence.

Keeping your "nose clean" while in custody is the easy part. OJ served less than half of his sentence.

[_subgenius]

What are you implying here CCC? That no criminals should ever be offered parole or a shortened sentence, regardless of how exemplary their behavior or their attempts to educate and improve themselves while in prison? Surely you are more compassionate and fair minded than that! Aren't you?

Nothing so dark. If someone doesn't want the consequences of committing a serious crime(Jail or Prison). They shouldn't commit the serious crime in the first place. I also believe many in prison are guilty of things that shouldn't be crimes, that they are sentenced for too long at time, that too little effort is put into rehabilitation after conviction. From what I understand Armed Robbery in Nevada can get someone 22 years in prison. We can discuss if that is too long or not. But I would expect anyone convicted of such to serve at least 3/4 of that time, and preferably the full legal sentence.

Keeping your "nose clean" while in custody is the easy part. OJ served less than half of his sentence.

you, of course, understand what parole is - correct? Being out of jail does not mean he is not serving a sentence. People can even serve an entire sentence in jail and then still be on parole when they leave...this is an additional punishment.
So, yeah, your habit of talking about stuff you know little about is quite entrenched.

[_Maxine Waters]

I also believe many in prison are guilty of things that shouldn't be crimes, that they are sentenced for too long at time, that too little effort is put into rehabilitation after conviction. From what I understand Armed Robbery in Nevada can get someone 22 years in prison.

If it costs the taxpayer several million to rehabilitate a drug addict liberals call that a success. $20 trillion in debt, $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities hold no meaning anymore, nor do crippling taxes that hurt the economy. When you live in the world of government funding, there's no real need to do a serious cost benefit analysis because it just looks like some astronomical and incomprehensible number. You never think of the hardship you're imposing upon future generations.