OJ Simpson's book, If I Did It (does anyone have a shred of doubt), will NOT be published, thanks to the huge public outcry against it.

The problem now is what to do with the 400,000 copies already printed. Some have suggested turning the books into compost.

Stuart Campbell, author of compost-advice book, [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Let-Rot-Composting-Down-Earth/dp/1580170234/sr=8-1/qid=1164751702/ref=sr_1_1/002-0831729-8976013?ie=UTF8&s=books]Let It Rot[/ame], offered this advice: "I would suggest, in all seriousness (sweet irony of the whole OJ scenario notwithstanding), the use of manure. If thoroughly mixed with the paper and given enough time, it should produce wonderful, odorless yet fertile mulch. Any and all kinds of animal manure (other than human) would work well. The 'hottest' manure, in terms of its ability to decompose adjacent materials quickly would be chicken shit."

Now...wouldn't that be just perfect? From chicken shit to chicken shit in just a few easy steps.

Carlene, I don't know what you mean by "OJ Simpson isn't black except in the broadest sense - the color of his skin. If I were a member of the black race, I would be ashamed to claim him. "Issue of race" my happy ass....unless you're saying that all black people are insensitive, no class, publicity-seeking, do-anything-for-money, celebrity whores. Wait....that would make Paris Hilton black, wouldn't it? Oh, well....if the shoe fits..."

You'll have to explain that one to me. I don't want to draw any conclusions about you based on that description of what you apparently think black people are. Or what you yourself have called OJ in the past. But your description is really close to being offensive, as far as I'm concerned. You probably didn't see anything wrong with Kramer's little rant in the nightclub either, did you.

Explanation follows:

OJ Simpson has never done anything to further the cause of African Americans. He did not use his celebrity status to make a difference in the black community, (like Bill Cosby, for example). He is NOT anything black Americans should be proud of, in my opinion.

I did NOT say that I believed black people were "insensitive, no-class, publicity-seeking, do-anything-for-money celebrity whores". I said that described OJ Simpson, and Paris Hilton (among others). Obviously, if I think Paris Hilton falls into that category, I wasn't making a racial comment.

By the way, if Scott Petersen writes a book, I won't read it, either. I think he and OJ were cut from the same cloth. Thank goodness Petersen didn't have enough money to buy himself a verdict!

That's actually a poor example. Guilt or innocence infers INTENT. Unless the people who installed the heater intended to electrocute the person who got into the pool, there is no reason to speak in those terms. That's why they were sued for negligence. That's also why people in service industries have insurance - to protect them from mistakes such as the one you just described.

Exactly....there is no place in the civil courts system for "guilt" - only culpability. One can be at fault and still be "not guilty".

Manslaughter carries a criminal penalty when one causes the death of another person, but did not intend to do so. That might have been a better example, but I don't recall the specifics of any manslaughter cases. Maybe StrawartS does.

I just want to reiterate my point about the differnces between the two systems. There is a need for a criminal and civil system because the two different systems are intended to protect different parties. In a criminal system, the defendant is being punished for harming SOCIETY in general, not the victim. That is why, although a victim and her family are allowed to testify in the punishment phase of a trial, the trier of fact is not supposed to give much weight to that testimony. A criminal trial is between a defendant and the state.

The civil system is the victim's chance for retribution. The discrepancy has come up in the OJ case because a defedant worth suing in a civil system is very rare. Defendants are often insolvent.

As an aside, sometimes a victim is entitled to NO compensation - like when the victim is injured by the state. If the state screws you over, you can't sue them unless they give you permission to sue them (this is called sovereign immunity).

In regard to intent, it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, and throwing around those legal terms without regard to their legal meaning complicates this discussion. To be found guilty in a criminal court, you did not have to intend your crime (the specific crime that occurred). In regard to murder, the following two forms of murder require no intent to kill -

1. Depraved heart murder - an unintentional killing that results from a defendant's extremely negligent conduct (for example, firing a gun into a crowded room or throwing a heavy object from a rooftop onto a busy street)

2. Involuntary manslaughter - an unintentional killing that results from a defendant's gross negligence (negligence that is less than extreme negligence, but more than tort negligence) (for example, firing a gun into a room that appears empty or throwing a heavy object off a rooftop in a residential area)

In addition, felony murder results when a defendant accidentally killed someone during the commission of another felony. For example, if a gun accidentally discharges during a bank robbery, that killing is elevated to murder status because it occurred during a felony, even though the defendant did not intent to kill anyone.

P.S. Don't be mad Carlene, but I've recently decided that Scott Peterson is not guilty. At least in the legal sense. I've been researching his case online, and it turns out that a lot of reversible error occured during the trial. I won't steal the thread, but this document is a good summary of why the conviction might be overturned -

http://scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/editorials/10reasons.htm

I just amazed that O.J. can wander out in the world daily without anyone taking care of him themselves. I surprised he hasn't been oft, already. If that is the correct word.

I think it's "offed". I watch the Sopranos, faithfully.

P.S. Don't be mad Carlene, but I've recently decided that Scott Peterson is not guilty. At least in the legal sense. I've been researching his case online, and it turns out that a lot of reversible error occured during the trial. I won't steal the thread, but this document is a good summary of why the conviction might be overturned -

http://scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/editorials/10reasons.htm

Doesn't "reversible error" just mean that he might be entitled to another trial? It doesn't necessarily make him innocent, does it? There is, after all, a HUGE difference between "innocent" and "not proven guilty".

Maybe he did it, maybe he was involved, maybe it was her drug dealer - but the bottom line and end result is he is not guilty according to our judicial system and is a free man with the ability to do whatever he wants.

Yes, like commit murder again.

Doesn't "reversible error" just mean that he might be entitled to another trial? It doesn't necessarily make him innocent, does it? There is, after all, a HUGE difference between "innocent" and "not proven guilty".

Hence why I said "not guilty." It's definitely a sketchy situation, and I'm not convinced that he had nothing to do with it. But from my cursory investigation, it appears that he got sent to death row for having an affair. I believe the prosecutor even said in his closing argument that he didn't have to prove to the jury how or when Peterson did it, just that he did. To me, the how and where are pretty entrenched in the act. One of the defense's major lines of reasoning in the appeal is that the case went from the state having the burden of proof to the defense being forced to prove that he DIDN'T do it. Say what you will about him as a person (and I'll whole-heartedly agree), but it looks like he didn't get a fair shake procedurally.

In regard to the original topic, Mandy suggested that the victims' families be offered the profits. In fact, this did happen. The publishers offered the Browns and Goldmans the profits from the book, but the Browns and Goldmans regarded it as hush money and promptly refused.

I'm disappointed that the book got pulled, because like any good train wreck afficionado, I was very curious to see what he possibly had to say. I mean, how did he explain this one to his kids? Look guys, I didn't do it, but if I had intended to murder your mother, here are the bloody and gory details of how I personally would have done it.

Edit - reminds me of the time during my parents' divorce when my dad told me that my mother wanted to have an abortion and only went through with her pregnancy because my dad threatened her with divorce. Uhm...thanks for sharing, but is that information really appropriate for a 12-year-old?

I hate to say it, but I am with Nathalie on this one. Should he have been convicted? Probably, but he wasn't. It doesn't seem right to for people to be able to go after someone twice for the same crime after being aquitted, and to me that is what happened. Go after someone in the criminal courts or in the civil courts, but not both.

And Carlene, I also found your comment to be offensive. Do you have to act a certain way to be "black?" I am hoping you just misphrased what you were trying to say. If not, it makes me reconsider the respect I have for you.

Would you be so charitable if a drunk Mel Gibson ran you over and left you paralyzed for life? The criminal system might give him 6 months jail time for DWI, or he might get off, being really rich and famous. I would feel entitled to some of his money for everything he stole from me. But maybe I'm just a vengeful bitch.

As for my OJ comments....how does being critical of a man who happens to be black make me a racist? I've posted much worse about George Bush, and he's white (and erroneously believed to be "from Texas", which embarrasses me greatly).

I said that Simpson was not a credit to his race, and he isn't. The man has no shame, no tact, no class whatsoever. And very little regard for the feelings of his own children, I might add. The fact that he wrote such a sleazy piece of trash just proves my point, which was that NO ONE should be proud to be associated with OJ (or Paris Hilton), unless they too are low-class, etc, etc, etc do-anything-for-money publicity whores. It's not about acting black...it's about acting like a decent human being, for heaven's sake.

Well, regardless of whether the notorious OJ did it or not i think 'If I did' it is in bad taste and disrespectful of the dead to say the least...I mean hey would any of us (after dieing) like to see our own spouse write a book listing how they would have killed you....she is probably turning in her grave!

Of course its in bad taste....that is a given, in every sense of the word. My goodness....the title is like a "skull and crossbone" flag wagging in our face as far as bad taste is concerned. And...as far as I'm concerned....is an obvious sign of guilt! Its like he is wanting us to see his cleverness in these murders in case we missed it the first time around.

Carol

If I were a member of the black race, I would be ashamed to claim him.

Are we not all "members" of society?

I am a member of the human race and I am ashamed of him. ~Mandy

Hence why I said "not guilty." It's definitely a sketchy situation, and I'm not convinced that he had nothing to do with it. But from my cursory investigation, it appears that he got sent to death row for having an affair. I believe the prosecutor even said in his closing argument that he didn't have to prove to the jury how or when Peterson did it, just that he did. To me, the how and where are pretty entrenched in the act. One of the defense's major lines of reasoning in the appeal is that the case went from the state having the burden of proof to the defense being forced to prove that he DIDN'T do it. Say what you will about him as a person (and I'll whole-heartedly agree), but it looks like he didn't get a fair shake procedurally.

Since I started the OJ thread, I don't think anyone can yell at me for highjacking it. I just have to say that I am way too skeptical to swallow a lot of "just coincidence" crap. His wife's body washed up in the same area where he admittedly spent time on the day she disappeared. Coincidence?

He told Amber Frey BEFORE Laci disappeared that his wife had died.

Coincidence?

The police found hair that matched Laci's in the boat, although it was a new boat and no one else had seen or heard of her ever being in it.

Coincidence?

He had injuries to his hand and there was blood on the door panel of his truck.

Coincidence?

Scott Peterson had motive, means, and opportunity. Who else wanted Laci dead? No one. At one time he claimed to believe someone had abducted her for the baby, but there was no evidence that any attempt had been made to remove the child from it's mother's womb.

I think he's guilty as sin. I think he murdered his wife and unborn child in cold blood. I think Scott Peterson is the scum of the earth.