Is O J Simpson the victim of retribution rather than the recipient of justice?

O J Simpson has been found guilty, on all 12 counts of his latest escapade, by a Las Vegas jury that sat for 13 hours non-stop in a single day! The verdict came 13 years to the day that Simpson was acquitted of the murder of his wife and her friend. He could be put away for any number of years, from 15 to life, for 'kidnapping' of memorabilia relating to his sporting achievements he claimed were his from the Palace Station Hotel-Casino room. To many people who have waited a while to see Simpson get his come-uppance, they might be rubbing their hands with glee at the verdict. But a few questions, mainly five, need to be asked here in the cold light of day about this judgement. Is it really justice or basic retribution?

The other four key questions are:
1. What part did tiredness and anxiety play in getting that verdict?
13 hours is an awfully long time to be closeted non-stop trying to get a verdict. The fact that it carried on so long also indicates some major disagreement among the jury.

2. What part did the knowledge of the acquittal anniversary have on the discussion of his innocence or guilt? To what extent was this 'payback' time for Mr Simpson?

3. And what if he really was innocent of what happened in 1995, should his past really have any bearing on what has happened in this case?

4. And what validity does the verdict of an all-White jury, with uncomfortable comparisons to a Jim crow court, carry against a Black man suspected of killing a White woman, against a backdrop of endemic racism in America?

Whatever one's feelings about O J Simpson, the one thing that is important to acknowledge is that real justice has to be perceived to be done. Every citizen deserves that, regardless of who they are.

There are two very clear racial perceptions in the United States:
a. For many Blacks, it is that they will never get real justice because they are Black, in a system controlled, maintained and executed by Whites..

b. For many Whites, it is that Blacks condone criminality by their peers and view crime lightly judging by the percentage of minorities in prison.

Both perceptions are stereotypic and inappropriate, though with some foundation based on history and experience. But until you bridge them in some way, how can any justice be perceived to be done by either side?

Has real justice been done in this case, or has the man himself and his history made a fair judgement almost impossible for him?