Sunday, April 19, 2009

“ Real it y,” (RE)AFFIRMING RACE: Negotiation, and the “Trial of the Century”

Up until now I had not know that the O.J. case was based in such a racial divide. The fact that on a jury of twelve only two of the jurors were white is very interesting, especially given the neighborhood that Simpson was residing in. To see Hunt's analysis here regarding whether race really had anything to do with the jury's decision is very intriguing, and gives me a little less confidence in the jury system.
Posted by at

5 comments:

  1. NejApril 22, 2009 at 3:35 PM

    I agree - I had no idea that the racial divide was so strong during that trial. I think I must have been too young at the time, but when I saw the people jumping up and down and celebrating in the documentary, I was fascinated. I'm a little sad I missed all the details of the frenzy when I was younger. I wish I had been a sociologist back then.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CMacApril 23, 2009 at 11:44 AM

    I was also wondering about the jury, why it was made up of mostly women and how they decided on the racial balance (or unbalance). Its interesting that the jury played such an important role in the case and if the jury had been different, mostly white, the verdict would have been different.

    ReplyDelete
  3. RainbowBriteApril 23, 2009 at 5:03 PM

    I also had no idea about the racial divide. I really thought this case was all about a murder and that he wasn't charged because there wasn't enough evidence! It is really confusing and upsetting to think that a jury is picked by the lawyers for a very specific purpose. I think there needs to be a more fair way to compile a jury.

    ReplyDelete
  4. CavemanApril 25, 2009 at 4:32 PM

    Let's not forget too that this case was also about more than OJ and even more than the racial divide - it was about how that divide played into the criminal justice system, and how a whole class of people interacted with the LA police. It really seems that while whites believe OJ got a way with murder, and he probably did, black Americans believed it was more important that the LA police not get away with another case of corruption. Rodney King's influence on this case really can't be overplayed, as it really set the tone for the rest of the story that followed, at least when it came down to the issues surround criminal justice, class and race.

    ReplyDelete
  5. DaveApril 26, 2009 at 5:21 PM

    This case had to do with way more than what was on the surface. I didn't know anything about the racial divide, or about a lot of the controversial things that happened. Most of us were what? like 8 years old when the verdict came out. I feel like it mostly died after that, with all the other things that could take it's place. The context is amazingly important here. I mean you had the Rodney King case prior to this and the anger that came with that, so having the LAPD handling another high profile case with a black man, who this time was a pretty major celebrity and in many ways a hero to a lot of Americans just added more fuel to the fire ( I swear no puns with that one). It does surprise me a little that more white jurors, or non-black jurors weren't on the jury, but at the same time I question whether or not this was strategic. The trial was moved to LA, as opposed to OJ's wealthier, potentially "whiter" area of California. It's all so controversial, I don't think anything was left to chance.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)