PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE : For the Rich and Famous, a Level Playing Field : Unlike the Simpsons, Brandos and Milkens, most defendants are squashed by the criminal-justice system.

Is O.J. Simpson getting preferential treatment?

This question generates its most ardent responses among people who have experienced criminal proceedings firsthand. At the California Men’s Colony, a medium-security prison in San Luis Obispo, consensus on the yard is that Simpson is receiving no more and no less consideration than any other criminal defendant of stature and means.

But what is unsettling to many convicts, especially those doing “all day” for murder, is Simpson’s added advantage in being so well-liked by the American public, an affection that appears to mitigate perhaps the alleged crime and certainly the possible sentence. Still others hope that saturation media coverage in this case will shine a spotlight on these inequities and reveal to the world that American “justice” really is just sport.

Amid the regimented drudgery and forced labor that is prison, the overly familiar economic disparities in this country’s criminal-justice system raise few eyebrows. At least in California, convicts don’t believe it mere coincidence that 99.9% of the prison population hails from the underclass; minorities are the majority here. One inmate calls the economic factors at play “the invisible foot of Western jurisprudence,” stomping out the futures of everyone not wealthy enough to defend themselves. Too many people here are doing life for the same crime for which Christian Brando will do barely a nickel, and too many larcenists are serving anywhere from five to 10 while Michael Milken did just a couple and got to keep half a billion.

Because of a few cases receiving inordinate amounts of media attention, the public perceives the system as favoring the accused over the victims. In reality, the process is weighted heavily against the accused. Most convicts will tell you that they had the right to a poor defense and a quick and speedy trip up the river.

While Simpson’s zillion-dollar defense team gives him the type of muscle iron-pumpers here can only dream of, few see it overwhelming the prosecution. “He’s managed to level the playing field,” says one lifer. “He’ll get a fairer trial than most.” “It’s heartening to see a defense attorney actually challenging evidence,” says another. “The D.A. might have to actually prove this case.”

The “fair trial” and “presumed innocent” ethics are more myth than reality. You are presumed guilty even before arrest, and it’s pretty much downhill after that. The vast majority of defendants paraded before the bench have little or no money and must rely on that form of government assistance known as the public defender. There is no bigger joke. Like all forms of public aid, the average public defender beats a blank, but not by much. Some are idealists and do what they can, but many are inept and all are overburdened and ill-equipped to compete with the resources available to the district attorney’s office. There is nothing fair about it.

The D.A.’s office, working with police and the press, normally holds all the cards. But in Simpson’s case, the prosecution’s hand will be called every step of the way. Standard prosecutorial power plays--”piling on” excessive charges, usually successful in coercing the accused into a plea bargain (tantamount to a conviction); putting so-called expert witnesses on the stand unchecked; coaching and leading witnesses; validating questionable searches and seizures and Miranda violations by police--will not in this case go unchallenged.

Disputing evidence, challenging testimony, forcing prosecutors to play by the rules, these are the legal and necessary rights of every American accused of a crime and the moral obligation of every defense attorney. Yet such a defense, a real defense, remains beyond the reach of common people.

Watch the Simpson case and note: It is not about right or wrong or safe streets. It is about winning. It is sport, defense versus prosecution; a spectator sport, a commodity. It is the Americanized version of the pursuit of justice, where intense and relatively equally matched competition will forge truths on which a judge and jury will deliberate and base a verdict. And it is an anomaly, unavailable to most people.