Lets reverse some roles here. McVeigh has been in the public spotlight being accused of murdering his ex-wife and her friend. OJ has been arrested and charged with bombing the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
McVeigh has the "dream team" of defense lawyers. OJ has a public defender trying to opt out of the job. Or would it be the other way around?
Whatever McVeigh defense counsel, people would be on the streets shouting "mother killer" or would they line the streets to show they believe he is innocent?
Could the OJ defense be talking a racist conspiracy by the federal government and talking about them planting a gun on him? catching him in a speed trap? trying to show the trooper who stopped him is a racist?
Yet what is the difference in the two crimes? Only numbers. Certainly children died but then who would expect a day care center in a federal building?
Is a bomb really any different than a knife to the throat? Perhaps a crime scene of an ordinary house is different than that of a half missing building?
It is clear what is different. The alleged murderer of Nicole Simpson and friend is the great OJ Simpson. He is so famous, so well loved, that the prosecution does not dare ask for the death penalty for two cold blooded, wanton and very bloody murders. On the other had the president has promised, despite his inability to deliver, a speedy trial and execution for a person who does not have an illustrious sports career behind him.
On one hand we have a black man on trial and at risk of life in prison not death and there can be serious charges of racism against his accusers. On the other hand we have a white man who will be on trial for his life for having INCIDENTALLY murdered around two hundred people while destroying federal property. Keep firmly in mind, the primary charge is not murder, it is destroying federal property.
Would if make a difference if Nicole Simpson's Social Security card had been destroyed in the process?
There is a very clear message here that we all know and it is about time we talk about it publically. It it not the act that is punished but the person who commits the act.
OJ can walk because of racial feelings on the jury. OJ escaped the death penalty because of his performance on the football field. The OJ trial gets the most fatuous public attention solely because he is a sports hero.
McVeigh isn't going to get squat. The best he might get is an insanity defense and a room next to Hinckley, if he has rich parents.
We do NOT have impartial justice in this country. It is about time we admit it. Just let anyone suggest some kind of conspiracy theory against McVeigh and they will be accused of supporting defending a right wing extremist. It is just as clear anyone defending OJ Simpson defending the right of blacks to murder white women because they are sports heroes.
Nothing excuses emotion in place of thought and that applies in both these cases. There is no overwhelming provocation unless by some chance you are personally involved, such as Carroll O'Connor talking like Archie Bunker when the suicide of his son is concerned. It is not acceptable to abjure reason when reason is required.
But doing so is a long human tradition. We do not give justice based upon the crime. We give justice based upon the perception of the person committing the crime.
Acceptable opinions regarding a crime are determined by the perception of the person committing the crime. Even down to the innocent until proven guilty.
Consider McVeigh on this date. There are a few bits of information given to the press and not only does the public have him convicted but is looking for who "drove him to it." For OJ anyone can still point out, absent the DNA evidence, the evidence points more toward Kato Kaetlin than OJ. And just what drove OJ to it? How can such a question be asked? The evidence is still not before the jury.
Let me ask you, if Hinckley was insane for shooting at Reagan (which many liberals applaud although they claim it is a joke) does that make a person believing in long laughed at ideas such as a New World Order sane? And if the man is insane then who can be at fault? Jodi Foster?
Partly what we have in the bombing case is public discussion in the absence of anything serious to discuss. But in that absence comes speculation run wild; personal imagination in place of fact; exactly as happened in the aftermath of the OJ arrest.
We see ourselves in what we do to fill in the blanks in the absence of knowledge. A rational person says he does not know until the evidence is in and speculates upon what is known and only what is known.
But our justice is not rational. We should admit it.