Paris and OJ Flawed comparisons

I've believed in the innocence of O. J. Simpson since his 1995 trial when he was charged with killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman. I won't repeat the reasons why I've felt he wasn't guilty, but I'm peeved at how he's added to conversations to make a point.

The most recent reference to O.J. occurred about a month ago. National and local talk show hosts complained about the early release of Paris Hilton from jail because she said she was sick. The talk show hosts thought her early release by the Sheriff's Department was comparable to O.J. being judged innocent. I can't stop the comparisons; it's the constitutional right of Americans to do so, but I can say why I think their comparisons are flawed.

Paris, convicted a second time of driving under the influence, was sentenced to 28 days in jail. Claiming to be ill after spending two days in jail, authorities released her to home confinement. The next day, the judge who didn't believe her, returned Paris to jail.

To me there're really only two things Paris and O.J. have in common. Both are more known by their first names and both now are infamous. When making comparisons, an old saying advises, "compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges."

Paris was found guilty by a judge; a jury found O.J. not guilty. Public opinion of most knowledgeable Americans (blacks and whites) agreed with Paris's sentence. In O.J.'s case, those same knowledgeable Americans' opinions divided mostly along racial lines - whites, guilty; blacks not guilty.

In my judgment, it would be best if commentators compared O.J.'s trial and its conclusion to that of Rodney King's. King was a Los Angeles motorist, driving under the influence who was stopped and beaten by four Los Angeles policemen.

If you've forgotten the King trial, it was about the four uniformed LA cops accused of using excessive force to subdue King during a traffic stop. Even though King's beating by LA police was caught on tape, the four policemen were found not guilty at trial. The comparison extends further.

The four cops taped beating King (a black man) were white. After an extensive investigation and with irrefutable (the taped beating) proof, all four pleaded not guilty. At the civil trial that followed, the cops and the city of Los Angeles were sued in civil court and found liable. Finally, white Americans were a conspicuously silent to the apparent (to black Americans) miscarriage of justice.

O.J. is black; both his ex-wife, Nicole, and her friend Goldman were white. After the LAPD performed an extensive investigation and had gathered in their minds irrefutable proof (blood evidence and prior domestic abuse charges) O.J. pleaded not guilty. After the jury judged O.J. not guilty in criminal court the parents of Nicole and Goldman filed a civil suit against him.

The civil trial jury found O.J. both guilty of and liable for killing Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.

Regarding miscarriages of justice, should others and I conclude that most of the white Americans and commentators who lost their voices after Rodney King's trial, found them after O.J.'s-

Nelson Graves writes a weekly column for The News Virginian. He is Western Virginia director of the Virginia Minority Supplier Development Council. E-mail him at .