The Rodney King and O.J. Simpson Cases: Trials on America

The O.J. Simpson and Rodney King cases were both very important to their time. These cases uncovered a discrepancy between jurors and their sympathies based on race. The Rodney King case involved the prosecution of police officers who, on camera, brutalized a black man. The officers were prosecuted for misconduct and assault, however the white officers were all found innocent by a predominately white jury. Outraged mobs descended on Los Angeles in a plight for justice. Vehicles and properties were burned and vandalized, and even Rodney King pleaded with the public for an end to the violence. These events were followed closely by the trial of O.J. Simpson, a famous black man who lived a “white” life. His white ex-wife and her lover were brutally murdered, and a mound of evidence, including DNA, was brought against Simpson. However the man was found innocent by his predominately minority jury. He was later convicted in civil court however for damages. This time a white jury found the black man responsible for the deaths of his white ex-wife and her lover. These cases shed light on the discrepancies between jurors and their loyalties. They were not likely in these two cases to look at the facts and find sympathy with the deserving party; rather the white jurors found sympathy with white defendants and victims, while the minority jurors found sympathy with a famous black man. And the outraged public found fault with every decision made in both cases. (Upper right, OJ. and Nicole SImpson; Upper far right, Rodney King beating)

The Clinton Impeachment

President Clinton (bottom left) was impeached based on a flaw in personal character, not based on a political misdeed, the breaking of the law, or even crooked financial dealings. He had an extramarital affair with a subordinate in the workplace, a common accordance among every economic level in the world. However wrong President Clinton was in his actions it did not reflect on his character as a president. President Clinton was not the first, nor will he be the last to have low morals in his private life. Perhaps it was the fact that Monica Lewinsky (bottom right) was employed by the White House that created such a sensation, is this what made the president’s actions worth impeachment? Possibly, but a similar case to this one does exist in the United States past. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (top right), a loved and admired president of the United States was elected to the presidency four times! However he was prone to having extramarital relationships with women despite the fact that he was wheelchair ridden with polio! Roosevelt was in the company of his longtime mistress, Lucy Mercer (top left) on the day of his death. Roosevelt’s mistress was infact the social secretary of his own wife, who was heartbroken and demanded divorce when she learned of the affair. Still Roosevelt continued his affair and entertained Lucy in the White House. However this man is looked at as having strong character and bringing the country through in many times of crisis. Impeachment of a president should consist of more than a persecution of how he lives his private life. Should President Clinton have been chastised for his indiscretion? Yes! Should he have been impeached? No!

Iran-Contra Affair

The Iran-Contra Affair was one of the biggest fiascos and embarrassments of the entire Reagan administration. In 1986 the United States sold arms to Iran, a sworn enemy, as a means of providing funding for the Contras, an anti-communist guerilla organization based out of Nicaragua. The government could no longer fund the Contras directly because of the Boland Amendment, which made doing so illegal. The arms sales were revealed to the public in November of 1986. They had been revealed by a Lebanese newspaper that claimed the arms sales were part of a negotiation for the release of hostages taken by Hezbollah, an Islamist militant group based out of Lebanon. Upon the release of such information Reagan spoke on national television to deny the charge that his administration had played in role in sales. However Reagan made another statement on November 13, 1986, he admitted that arms had been transferred to Iran but he denied any connection between the transfer and hostage negotiations.