I was just a kid when OJ was arrested on murder charges.
Needless to say, my young brain couldn't adequately process anything beyond, "I'm a Bills fan. I know OJ as a legendary Bills player. I want him to be innocent."
Honestly, it's a bit odd that I haven't looked into the criminal trial in much more detail as an adult. We all know, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit." We don't all know the image of the glove not fitting. I know why the whole glove thing wasn't as important a piece of evidence as it was made out to be; but, I would dare anyone making strong statements regarding OJ's death to explain that without looking it up.
All that said, OJ's life after football, and a few bad movies, as a torrid one (using "torrid" in the British sense of the word, of course).
Thirty years later, people often still look at the OJ case as a miscarriage of justice, and a reason to change the system.
Even though I've come to believe that OJ probably committed those murders, I'm just like most of you in being ignorant of every detail. I can easily say, thirty years after the verdict, that I think he did it; but, if I'm a juror on a murder trial, it's my duty to look for a reasonable doubt.
The OJ case isn't a reason to change the system.
The system isn't perfect; but, it's based off of English Common Law, and Blackstone's ratio. I've yet to hear of a basis for any legal system that would be better.
There's also a good reason why we, in general, have the criminal trials before the civil proceedings. OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial because the burden of proof is, and should be, beyond a reasonable doubt. You and I may disagree with the jury's decision (again, who has watched the whole trial, or read enough about it, to make a point that hasn't already been made in pop culture?); but, what system is better than the presumption of innocence to be judged by your peers?
Obviously, he was found responsible in civil Court. That seems to be what gets people riled up the most -- a jury said that, more likely than not, he was guilty. How could we let him not be imprisoned after that? Well, it's because criminal and civil courts have different standards all the way through. Your bodily freedom is more important than your money. You can't plea the fifth in civil court.
I understand the frustration that comes with some cases in our system in which some people who are probably guilty get off. That's the price of a system that's built around preventing innocent people from being condemned.
It's clearly flawed in both directions, because humans are flawed. You can't fix human fallibility.
Welcome to life in the real world.