The Commodification of Justice

Lisa Rogers eqwq.lrogers at email.state.ut.us
Wed Oct 4 16:39:44 MDT 1995


I do not have to take "the commodity of justice" very literally, as
some posts seem to do, in order to see and say that the wealth of a
legal defendent makes a difference in the way one is treated by
arresting officers, the amount of media/public interest, the
"quality", fame and number of counsel, even the verdict and many
other things.

What I would really like to see on the list is a dissection of,
explanation/clarification of the particular ways in which OJ's money
is seen as affecting the trial, verdict, etc.  Such a concrete,
specific analysis might help to explain the mechanisms behind the
general observation that the rich can "buy justice."

In this particular case, I'm still wondering what is in the jury's
heads.  In any case, all the influences/factors that we could
consider do end up being filtered through the jury, and are realized
by/ embodied in the jury's vote.

I think that maybe the jury members tried to do as good and honest
job as they could.  But how much doubt is "reasonable"?  Is it
"reasonably" possible that Fuhrman and his ilk actually do frame
people?  I think it's not likely in this case.  But it may not be
reasonable from some LA residents' point of view to separate this
case and say 'no frame up' here, in spite of the wretched track
record of LAPD.  The chance that he was framed may look quite
reasonable to some reasonable people.

After other trials, I've seen jurors say 'I'm sure he did it, but
there was not solid enough evidence and credible enough witnesses to
convict.'  That may be a bit like I feel.

Lisa R



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list