I have always been interested in the judicial branch of government, court cases and understanding crimes that people have committed. I often find myself watching documentaries and television series about famous court cases and crime investigations. I always ask myself questions about what has happened and what the results are. With the very recent OJ Simpson trial, I have realized that I am not okay with many decisions that the modern judicial system makes.

The OJ Simpson trial particularly sparked my interest because it represented one of the most iconic declines from ultimate success to true crime. His first trial for the murder of his wife Nicole Brown-Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman created what is known as the trial of the century. Simpson was found not guilty for the murders of Brown and Goldman and the families were promised compensation, which to this day, has still not been fully received.

I find it very hard to believe that with the DNA evidence and knife-purchase history against Simpson that the court could find him not guilty of these brutal crimes. It makes me wonder if the fame of Simpson and his "dream team" of lawyers, including Robert Shapiro and Robert Kardashian, swayed the court in making a decision in his favor.

In his most recent trial, Simpson was being evaluated for parole in a 2007 armed robbery that he had been involved in. A Nevada parole officer ruled that Simpson should be released on parole as he had been a model prisoner and promised to not have conflicts if released.

Although this trial was solely for the armed robbery case, is releasing this man who was once accused of murder a safe idea for our society? What decisions will he make once he is free? I question the ruling of the court in this situation and hope that they have made a choice that will keep our nation safe.

In addition, I have been interested in the rulings of the court when it comes to cases of sexual assault. I find these cases very difficult to watch and digest. Why do the courts always feel the need to try to blame the survivor? It is a difficult task to make a decision on a very sensitive subject, but putting the public in danger by keeping these perpetrators free should make for a simple decision.

The recent case of Brock Turner, in which he was seen sexually assaulting a female behind a dumpster at Stanford University, created an uproar against the judicial system. Turner was sentenced to only six months in prison due to his lack of criminal record, age and remorse. Is this a good reason to allow a potentially dangerous individual to roam the streets freely after only six months of incarceration?

I am continuously bothered by the judgement of the United States Court System and hope that there will be a time where they are able to figure out that safety of the greater public should be prioritized. I feel fortunate every day to live in a country as free and just as the United States but know there is a definite need for improvement. I am not okay with the current state of the judicial system and believe that the country needs to change its ways to ensure the public's safety.