Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, October 8, 1995 TAG: 9510100034
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 13 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: COFY LOWE
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
One definition is ``the principle of moral rightness; righteousness.'' Another is ``the administration and procedure of law.'' Yet another would be ``conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason.''
Obviously, those are not mutually inclusive.
Listening to the pronouncement of the verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial this week, one had to be struck by the conflicting interpretations of justice in relation to those proceedings.
The trial may have been held across the country, but it was in our own community courtrooms, too. It forced on us a rethinking of the moral and ethical dimensions of a system of justice that we practice much the same way here in Virginia as they do in California.
It struck me that I would not want to be in O.J. Simpson's shoes, even with the acquittal. Who knows what kinds of threats he will face on the outside? Can he be protected from those who are convinced that he bought his freedom? And what does it say about our system when someone exonerated by the courts must still live in fear?
Is this justice?
Before the ink was dry on the papers ordering Simpson's release, Madison Avenue types were predicting that O.J. was going to be an even bigger commodity than ever. He can - if he chooses - build his marketability on the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
Is this justice?
Since white males, according to the polls, overwhelmingly believe he's guilty, will Simpson be able to get another TV football commentator's job? Will he, contrary to the other predictions, become unmarketable?
Is this justice?
For the victims' families, if the murderer was set free, there will never be justice. If the killer or killers remain at large, it seems highly unlikely they will ever be caught and brought to trial.
Is this justice?
For society, can the damage to reputation of the judicial system be overcome? Throughout the trial, the public conduct of the lawyers, in particular, has been seen as a daily advertisement of the need for reform of the profession's image. Bickering, fighting, posturing, and the appearance of a willingness to do anything to win have sown a deep disgust in the guts of many who watched.
Is this justice?
Every generation seems to have its sensational, media-glorified trials. Sacco and Vanzetti. Scopes. Hauptmann. Davis. Hearst. Watergate. The Chicago Seven.
The trials that tend to be remembered are those in which there are questions about the justice of the verdicts or the indictments.
It seems the Simpson trial fits the bill for being remembered.
But before we really know how it turns out, we as a society are going to have to deal with its stickiest issue: the ``race card.''
In this case, the system worked as it is designed to. A jury of his peers was unpersuaded that the evidence showed - beyond a reasonable doubt - that Simpson was a killer.
But there remain those who are convinced that this was just a payback for the acquittals of the police officers who beat up Rodney King. ``What goes around, comes around,'' said one radio talk-show participant.
What does that say about our system - when there is a perception that ``justice'' is reduced to a counterbalancing series of injustices?
Now that the Simpson verdict is in, we must deal with the fact that there remains a significant rift between blacks and whites in this country as to whether the ``justice system'' is really just.
Every time I think we've begun to win the ages-old war against racism, some incident seems to push us back into the trenches.
In a situation in which we should have been able to dispassionately evaluate facts and evidence, instead we found the nation inflamed by suspicion and distrust and even hatred broken down clearly along racial lines.
Maybe we needed the reminder that we still have a long way to go.
by CNB