Simpson Criminal Justice Case

In June of 1994, in Los Angeles County, California, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were murdered just outside of the former’s condominium. Not much later, O.J. Simpson was arrested for the double homicide. Evidence pointing towards Simpson’s guilt was powerful and plentiful. This included Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock, Simpson’s hair on Goldman’s body, and a pair of bloody gloves, one found near the victims and the other in Simpson’s home. The biggest factor in determining the outcome of Simpson’s trial turned out to be the bloody glove found at the crime scene, which did not fit Simpson’s left hand. Despite all the evidence, Simpson’s legal team was able to prove him innocent because of this unexplainable uncertainty. Whether
This ideal provides all Americans with the comfort that they will not be thrown in prison for a crime they did not commit. Essentially, to rule any conviction, the court must prove the suspect guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. This should also help to protect every individual from consequences based on false allegations. However, this principle is only extensively practiced in our judicial system. On college campuses across the U.S. sexual assault runs rampant. Due to this unfortunate truth, a clause was written into Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 that sets the standard of proof for such cases to be “preponderance of evidence”, rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt”. If “preponderance of evidence” is not a high enough standard for our judicial system, then it should not be an acceptable standard for cases of criminal nature within our schools; Furthermore, it leaves open countless possibilities for defamation of innocent parties and internal system
That is not what happened to Brandon Austin, a former University of Oregon basketball player. Austin was accused of sexual assault while attending the northwestern college. Austin had been accused of a similar offense at a previous college so the tides were already against him, even had a proper hearing or trial been held. The University of Oregon used the “preponderance of evidence” standard from Title IX when considering the case and decided that because of his past, an accusation was more than enough evidence to remove him from the campus. This was a ruling that would later allow Austin to sue the university for $7.5 million dollars. The University of Oregon did not handle any part of this case incorrectly but did pay an extreme price due to the laughably low standards set by Title IX. “Preponderance of evidence” is essentially a majority rule; So long as more than 50% of the evidence points in one direction, the ruling shall follow. An accusation of sexual assault against a man with a history of sexual assault allegations was more than reasonable enough to rightfully dismiss Austin. Yet, when the case was taken to court, which used the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, it was clear that not only was there nowhere near enough evidence to suggest Austin had been guilty of anything. Austin won the lawsuit he placed against the university on grounds that the false accusations and