Critical Points of Philosophy in Nevada v. Simpson

This post originally appeared on EagleIOnline, Boston College Law School's student blog.

EagleIOnline has been too understaffed to provide in-depth legal analysis of the upcoming critical, groundbreaking case: State of Nevada v. Orenthal James Simpson, et. al. Unfortunately for our readership, green and virginal 1L Sakib, EagleIOnline’s newest opinion columnist, has been tasked with this assignment.

NEWTON, MA State of Nevada prosecutors filed charges, 1 misdemeanor and 7 felonies, against OJ Simpson and 3 of his associates in relation to his storming of a Las Vegas hotel room. The mildly entertaining fact pattern is as follows:


• Simpson and his girlfriend, a creepy dead-ringer for his late ex-wife, were staying at the Palms Las Vegas in a humble $250 per night room. The Goldman family has yet to claim ownership of all complementary shampoos and soaps.
• Ex-con, Thomas Riccio, the man who displayed impeccable scruples in his auctioneering of Anna Nicole Smith’s diaries, contacted OJ about memorabilia OJ suspected had been stolen from him, including the “Trial of the Century” suit he wore at his acquittal hearing.
• “The Juice”, feeling the squeeze of the $33.5 million dollars in civil liability owed to the Goldman family, did not rent a car in Vegas. He arranged for an old golfing buddy, Walter Alexander, to put together a crew and get a truck to aid Simpson in the recovery of his stolen personal property.
• Alexander assembled the crew. AC Collins was unavailable, so Alexander recruited “helpers.” (Use your imagination… your vivid imagination.)
• The crew reached the Place Station casino-hotel, a class A dump, and Riccio led them to a room where memorabilia dealers Alfred Beardsley and Bruce Fromong were waiting for a prospective buyer.
• Chaos ensued as Simpson’s motley crew rushed into the room with the gusto of the famed “Electric Company” offensive line.
• One of the gang, probably the one playing the role of Scooby, yelled, “I’m a cop and you’re lucky this ain’t L.A. or you’d be dead.” EagleIOnline failed in efforts to contact Mark Fuhrman for comment.
• Simpson added quisitive insight: “Don’t let nobody get out of here. Motherfucker, you think you can steal my shit and get away with it?”
• Simpson had his men grab up all of the memorabilia in the room and fled to the parking lot. Only then did Simpson check what it was that Beardsley and Fromong had–the scheme recovered only one Simpson item.

Any solid legal analysis would begin by spotting the issues and then applying facts to precedent. The facts of this case beg the question, why is there even a prosecution? Sure, guns were drawn, but they weren’t fired. Sure, there was an intent to take property from someone who had possession, but it was assumed to be wrongful possession. OJ was given a chance to take what was rightfully his, and he took it. Are OJ Simpson’s actions anything other than American?

According to the State of Nevada, there are several minor, ancillary laws on the books: burglary, assault, robbery, kidnapping, conspiracy, etc. which the facts might support OJ violating, in technicality. Many states have “blue laws”, but prosecutions tend to follow evil, anti-American wrongfulness, like killing your ex-wife and her boyfriend in cold blood.

As any 1L worth their liberal arts degree can tell you (or in my case, worth my minor in Middle Eastern Cultures), this issue is not of law, nor of fact, but rather of philosophy. A diligent researcher need not delve far into the annals of philosophy to find classical precedent. In Euthyphro, Socrates inquires as to why Euthyphro seeks to prosecute his father for murder. When Euthyphro explains that he’s doing it because he’s being pious, The Socratic Methodologist asks for more. “Piety is what I am doing now; that is to say, prosecuting any one who is guilty of murder, sacrilege, or of any similar crime.” Our analytical Athenian uncle did not accept this shallow argument, and neither shall we.

Why is the Clark County prosecutor bringing the Simpson case despite the fact that Fromong has been quoted as saying, “Never at any time was I ever, [sic] did I feel threatened by O.J.,” and Beardsley requested that charges not be filed? Piety is what he is doing now? But piety to what? To the Law! To the law? But what does the law gain from turning OJ into prison pulp? Respect in the eyes of others? Who are these others? Respect by who and for who? By the citizenry for the government? By blacks for whites? By C-list celebrities for the tabloid cabal? By adoring fans for some soon-to-be-famous prosecutor? These are critical points not of fact, nor of law, but of philosophy.

Bibliography:
“OJ Got Stung Going in with a Sting,” by Stacey Silberman, Hollywood Today, October 1st, 2007.
“Accounts reveal how alleged Simpson caper crumbled,” Associated Press on CNN.com, September 23rd, 2007.
“OJ Simpson has some wiggle room for second great escape,” by Tony Allen-Mills, The Sunday Times, September 23rd, 2007.
“A Timeline of the Latest OJ Simpson Case,” Associated Press, September 22nd, 2007.
Criminal Complaint, State of Nevada v. Orenthal James Simpson, et. al., September 18th, 2007.
Apparent Tape of O.J. Released in Vegas, Associated Press, September 17th, 2007.
Euthyphro, Transcribed by Plato circa 380 B.C.E., Translated by Benjamin Jowett.

Class division, the economy, and public radio stealing my blog entries

This post originally appeared on the now defunct blog, Team Sakib.

One of my favorite shows on NPR is Marketplace, NPR's daily business review. While most business or economics media outlets (like WSJ) target their programming for affluent and powerful businessmen (who, I'm sure, command a strong demand in the advertising sector), Marketplace tends to make that pull a little less. Yes, Marketplace is still economics skewed for the rich, like CNBC, but it makes that assumption that these rich might want to hear a slightly more balanced approach.

Anywho, last night's Marketplace show stole a couple of ideas I had for posts. Or rather, featured other people who had the same ideas that I did, and got the job done fleshing them out much sooner and better. I'll discuss the larger issue one now and save Cal-Berkeley's analysis of Facebook vs. Myspace for later.

The financial gap is everyone's problem

by John Authers, investment editor, The Financial Times

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. And that could be a problem — for the rich.

That's not an original observation. It goes back at least as far as Karl Marx, who talked of "two great hostile camps" that could sort out their differences either through revolution or in "the common ruin of the contending classes."

Nobody on Wall Street is advocating revolution. But if UBS, the biggest bank in Switzerland, can say it finds that "low-income Americans have been in a recession all this century" that says something.

UBS believes that inequality is a deepening problem for everyone, and not just the poor.

And Wall Street is right to be worried. First of all, it makes the job of investing harder.

That's because numbers on the aggregate economy become meaningless when you have two separate economies, one built around the rich and the other around the poor.

So, good luck on deciding where to put your money. If you want to lend, look no further than the subprime mortgage debacle. The headlines show the U.S. economy barely slowing down, and yet the subprime mortgage industry is in crisis.

The theory is that diversification will look after you. Mortgages and other loans are now packaged up and sold on as securities. If you buy a security representing a range of mortgates, defaults should stay at a manageable rate.

But that assumes all borrowers are living in the same economy. If they are living in two, one of which is in crisis, such comfortable assumptions go out of the window.

And if you want to invest, luxury goods are a good investment but there is a limit as to how many of those goods the rich will buy. Selling to the increasingly poorer economy looks risky.

Marx said that inequality could be a problem for everyone. He proposed his own solution, which would certainly not go down well with the wealthy. But remember his other option was "common ruin."

Wall Street is taking that more seriously than you'd think.

The economy has been absolutely rosy from my vantage point, the upper class vantage point that is. Yet, it is not hard to believe that as gas prices rise, and with them the price of any basic good that has to be shipped, the price of heat and hot water, and the cost of simply getting to work everyday, that the lower class economy is struggling. It's ironic how it seems that affordable energy is a key element to development--see Iran's struggles with subsidized gas prices as the country regresses from developing third world country (a rare breed) to militaristic economically-stunted third world country (see Pakistan). In the US, we've seen high gas prices the last seven years, and with it we've seen a slow-down in all sectors of the economy, except on the street, where luxury consumer goods seem to be more prevalent now than ever before (I have no citation).

The trend seems to be rather entrenched, and the result imminent, though not through drastic discrete events. Over time, it seems the rich will continue to get richer, the poor will continue to get poorer. More than terrorism, more than the war, more than civil liberties, this should be the foremost concern of American Muslims. Yes or no?