Moral Dilemma

So OJ Simpson got 9-16 for armed robbery, possibly trying to get his stolen stuff back. This brings up an interesting question. What if the jury decided to hand him a sentence because of his double murders back in 1995? Which we now all know he did commit, thanks to his book, HA! HA! Suckers! or whatever it was called.

So, the question is, is it right to punish him harsher now for past crimes he got off of? Is old justice at any time more important than justice for the current crime?

What if he was truly innocent this time, but the jury just wanted to make him pay for his past crimes? Is it right to punish an innocent man for previous crimes he wasn't punished for? What if the punishment for the noncrime is fair for the alleged crime, regardless of the severity of the former crime (he's not being punished more now for then)?

I say, if someone has committed a crime and gotten away with it (not just tried and not convicted), and is punished later for a crime they didn't commit, then it's still fair because the person is finally receiving justice for the real crime. As long as the punishment is appropriate for the alleged crime. even if the real crime deserved a harsher sentence.

Of course, there's more than enough support for the wrongness of it all. If they got away with it, they got away with it. Punish only for the crime committed, not past crimes. A previously guilty man who's innocent now is still an innocent man, no matter how much they don't deserve to get away with their past crime.

What are your thoughts? Is it right to punish for an earlier crime when dealing with a whole new crime? Or do you feel each crime needs to be kept separate. Pay for each crime as you're tried, not saving up or back crimes or what not? If a man is wrongfully acquitted, well, lucky him then? Or payback is a bitch? An unpunished crime must remain so? Or welcome to Karma Land. Population: You?

I also am not accusing any jury of back criming. Just a thought which crossed my mind.