choice but to hire lawyers fresh out of college, or lawyers who can get no other case because of reputation, and throw them into the system to defend a poor guy with no other means of representation. Is it fair that the poor get such bad representation while the rich may get away with crimes simply because they can afford to pay for the best lawyers? Certainly not. To illustrate this point we must look at the case of Antonio James. He has been on death row at Angola Prison for nearly twenty years waiting for the death when he will walk down the hallway and enter the death chamber. His death sentence had been previously postponed fourteen times and he was up for the next walk to the chamber. Mr. James had been in trouble the law as a young child growing up in the ghettoes of the south, but one day he was with the wrong guy and totally not in the control of the situation. Shots were fired and in the end, two people were killed, one two separate occasions. Antonio and two other men were arrested and tried for the robberies and murders but only Antonio went to jail for any significant time and was sentenced to death. His partners in crime walked out almost free because they testified that Antonio was the gunman on both occasions. Antonio went to jail and years later he got a new lawyer, who discovered evidence that Antonio had not committed the murders. This kept Antonio alive for years until he was finally put to death. We then look at the case of O.J. Simpson. Simpson, also African-American, was a popular football star. One day his ex-wife and her friend were murdered just outside of her home. Later Simpson was placed as the only suspect and he gave the police and the American public plenty of evidence that he was guilty of the crime. Simpson was found innocent despite the substantial evidence against him, but only because he could afford the best lawyers that could be bought. So what are the differences in the two cases? Both men were tr...
