A Philosopher Looks at the OJ Verdict
by Dr. Leonard Peikoff
Total Time: 1 hour, 29 minutes
Using the trial and verdict in the OJ Simpson murder case as a chief example, Dr. Leonard Peikoff explains the philosophic nature of the American legal system and the contradictions that it embodies. He examines how the classic issues in legal trials—reasonable doubt, the nature of evidence, appeals to emotion, alternate theories of the case—as portrayed at trial and in the media illustrated the deeper philosophical issues at work in American culture.
Study Guide
This material is designed to help you digest the lecture content. You can also download a printable PDF version below.
| Why is the OJ Simpson verdict an “eternal concrete”? |
| How did the trial bring out a specific moral code in the legal system? |
| Why is race such an important issue in the trial? |
| What philosophic approach gave rise to the idea of race resentment? |
| Where did race consciousness and collectivism come from? |
| How did modern philosophy undermine the concept of reasonable doubt? |
| What crucial distinction does the defense’s repeated use of “possible” eliminate? |
Q&A Guide
Below is a list of questions from the audience taken from this lecture, along with (approximate) time stamps.
| 56:01 | If we can solve so many problems of life and society with philosophy, first of all, who determines that Objectivism is the right philosophy to apply to our problems? Second, if we assume that we apply Objectivism, how do you know that the way you see reality—or the one reality, as you perceive it—is the correct reality? If you dispute the right of any defendant to have lawyers paid for by the state by us taxpayers, you will get exactly the “O.J. Simpson effect,” but even worse, because then it is only the poor defendants who will go to jail, not the rich ones. |
| 1:02:17 | On one of your radio shows you had mentioned that you didn’t like the movie Forrest Gump. I was curious as to the reasons for that. |
| 1:04:07 | On a light-hearted note, I would like to ask for your opinion on the Mad Cow Disease epidemic, from a philosophical point of view. |
| 1:05:11 | I think you’ve illustrated well the danger of skepticism to society, and so I’d like to ask you to back up a claim that you’ve made. Skepticism has been around for a very long time, and it seems to me that it’s easy to believe in, it’s been shrouded in the mantle of sophistication by a lot of people beyond Kant—and maybe not even by Kant. So, in what sense is the “epistemology of maybe”—skepticism—his fault? |
| 1:09:03 | I wanted to take you up on your offer to discuss what you consider the appropriate role of defense attorneys. |
| 1:15:52 | Could you comment on the concept of jury sequestration and whether, if ever, it’s valid? And also: How would jurors be selected and the whole process be conducted in choosing juries in a free society? |
| 1:19:08 | At the end of your talk you said that the solution is a rational philosophy, and you ended with the question: “who will implement that philosophy?” Could you expound on that? |
| 1:22:02 | What about the contributions of the civil rights movement to today’s present racial woes, in terms of black racism, and silence of deprivations of many in the black community? |
| 1:23:53 | First, in an era where there are so many judicial outrages, almost daily, why does the O.J. Simpson case stand as a sign of the times? Second, on the basis of your analysis, how would we evaluate the conduct of Chief Prosecutor Garcetti? |