Stay Connected

FacebookTwitterRSS

Subscribe by Email

Students’ reactions to the “Juice” interview

March 16, 2018

The tapes of O.J. “The Juice” Simpson’s interview from 2006 were aired earlier this week which caused mass hysteria among traditional and new media. During the interview, Simpson walks through a hypothetical scenario about the alleged murders that led several individuals to ask these questions: was there an accomplice, and did he confess? People have been debating these questions over social media with fury. Within the past two years, there has been a Netflix series, Simpson’s release, and the release of his interview tapes. The trial of “The Juice” has been fresh in the minds of multiple generations for a while. Stemming from 1994, the Simpson trial is truly the case of the century.

I sat down with our Features Editor, Tessa Jones and sophomore International student, Manu Dharmarajah as they voiced their opinions on each question I asked.

Riley Hess: A question that I would like to ask is why would this new information matter to the students of Monmouth? Simpson has already eluded the law for murder charges and has already served time.

Tessa Jones: He served time for what is a lesser crime. For students at Monmouth, I think its the fact of accountability. After receiving new information, concluding that he did *basically* confess, he should be reprimanded. Otherwise, it shows how we, as a society, can be found innocent, but are truly guilty and get off scotch free. As a *once* role model, this case would help families involved with closure, aide in future criminal cases (because I’m sure OJ isn’t the only one this has happened with) and establish laws or regulations that let such people get what they deserve.

Manu Dharmarajah: A wide array of students of different backgrounds would view this as a controversial topic because O.J. finessed the system via his race card and is still a threat to society. He could snap again at any moment.

RH: Another variable we must consider is how does this change the national stage and process for future murder charges?

TJ: As mentioned, there needs to be a reform. Our laws are not perfect and though double jeopardy is set in stone, I believe that this specific case challenges it to the millionth degree. It’s one thing to free those that are convicted after finding out they’re actually innocent (which is another story, because again, we don’t help them after we’ve wrecked their lives) BUT it’s another to not look into nevertheless charge, someone who has later admitted such guilt.

MD: It invites more murders by non-white individuals solely because race is such a hot topic in this country in particular. The system can easily be taken advantage of.

RH: Finally, at the end of the day, how does this shape the perception of how celebrities are viewed and treated in our society?

TJ: Our perception of celebrities is that they can do no wrong and celebrities know that and abuse it. There is no law stating that celebrities or those of a higher status should be treated more delicately; they are everyday people at the core. The fact that they can get away with things because of their status or money is disheartening for those that are constantly getting framed, stereotyped, and manhandled by police and investigators. It’s unfair and absurd as to why, just because he ran the football down the field, OJ becomes America’s Most Protected. Think of the pain he caused and the lives he ruined. How does that justify him being a celebrity?

MD: Seeing celebrities in brand endorsements, as well as other forms of visual entertainment, causes the public to see them as positive figures and creates a mental barrier away from a negative persona.

Riley Hess
Editor-in-Chief

Be Sociable, Share!