OJ Simpson Trial

It doesn't seem fair but if they think they can get better charges on the top two guys with the other four people's testimonies then that's what they'll go with. They're always about making deals, it makes their job easier and gives them more evidence to work with.

I agree. Does that mean if I commit a crime, it's a lesser offense if I testify against my co-defendents? Does it mean my participation in a crime is OK because I'm willing to tell on someone else? It seems to me that by doing this, some people get away with the crime they committed. Like they are rewarded for tattling and their crime is non-existent.
I think everyone involved should be punished equally. I understand that it makes the Prosecution's case easier, but in all honesty, I wouldn't believe what the criminal has to say. The incentive to lie is too great, because the reward is so big. I can easily see a criminal saying whatever the Prosection wants them to say because it is to their own benefit. I don't mean to imply that the Prosection is pressuring them to lie, what I mean is, if they ask you to testify against a co-defendent, isn't it obvious that they want the goods on that person? How would they know if you exaggerate that person involvement and minimize your own?
I just don't tihnk it's a good policy. if a criminal were to testify for someone's defense, wouldn't they be considered an unreliable witness? So why not when they are turning State's evidence? It's a double standard, credible for prosecution, unreliable for defense. It makes no sense that these criminals should be believed or rewarded.