Isn't it Constitutionally illegal in the US to be tried twice for the same crime?

Question

So how come people are often tried for the same crime twice? Once in a criminal court, and the other in a civil court? Isn't that technically illegal?

But say it's one act of crime. I don't think our founders would have agreed to trying that one act by it's many different attributes as what they had in mind.

Answer 1

Double-Jeopardy is the name of the law. It only applies to criminal cases. Suing someone for a wrongful death is different than saying they are the ones who actually murdered the person.

Although, I must say that I agree with you. If a person is acquitted of a crime by a jury of their peers, then why can they be found responsible for the death and have to pay monetary damages?

Answer 2

Your question asks about being tried twice for the same crime, but also asks about a civil case for the same "criminal" act. Your question presupposes that a civil case has something to do with crime, but it is not the same thing.

Let me give you an example... Let's say that you punch somebody in the nose. (For this example, don't assume anything outside of those facts.) The police will likely cite you, or they may arrest you for the crime of battery. You will go to trial and be convicted for the crime of battery. The person you punched will then sue you for the tort of battery. A tort is any wrongdoing for which an action for damages may be brought in civil court. A tort is not a crime and a crime is not a tort, but battery is both a tort and a crime. Check out the source links for more details.

Let me give you another example. Let's say you rearend somebody in your car. The crime you may have committed would be something like driver inattention, careless driving, reckless driving or something along those lines. The tort, however, is negligence.

Another example, let's say that someone is murdered. They accuse you of the crime. At the criminal murder trial, the glove doesn't fit and you are found "not guilty." That doesn't mean you didn't do it, it just means that the jury found a reasonable doubt that you did. Now, the person's family turns around and files a lawsuit for the tort of wrongful death. To win the civil trial the family only has to show that, more likely than not, you were the one that caused the death of the person who was murdered. You are not being tried for the crime of murder again, you are being tried for the tort of wrongful death.

Answer 3

No. The constitution states that a person may not be "subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb". The 5th Amendment applies against federal indictments, while the 14th Amendment incorporates that protection against state trials.

However, the protection is not absolute. First, it doesn't apply as between different sovereigns. So, a state court and a federal court can both try a defendant for the same underlying acts, based on separate violations of state and federal law. Also, it only protects against re-trial (by the same sovereign) for the same offense, not for a different crime based on the same conduct, and not for a different violation of the same law at a different time.

None of that applies to civil cases. Why? Because in civil case the defendant is not put in jeopardy of life or limb. The only penalties that a civil court judgment can apply are monetary, or an order prohibiting certain conduct (an injunction). Because there is no loss of life or liberty interest (no jail time), there is no "jeopardy of life or limb".

Also, as a technically, the civil court never tries someone for criminal violations. Only torts or breaches of contract. Granted, the tort of battery and the crime of battery may have the same elements, and wrongful death arising from negligence may be equivalent to negligent homicide.

The bottom line is that the two court systems use different standards of review, and often different evidentiary standards. And they are granting different types of remedies and judgments. So, the legal restrictions relating to double jeopardy don't apply.

Answer 4

Nope, because there's a big difference between a civil case and a criminal case. In a criminal case, it's the defendant against the state, and the state is taking the case to court in order to hopefully win a conviction and punish the defendant for committing a crime. In a civil case, however, it's a defendant against another private citizen who was wronged or harmed by the defendant, has suffered personal injury and/or property damage as a result of the defendant's actions, and is demanding compensation. So if you kill someone in a car accident because you were driving under the influence, you can be tried by a criminal court and end up going to jail, but you can also be tried by a civil court and ordered to pay for the hospital bills and car repairs of the people you hit. Make sense?

Answer 5

Being tried by civil court is different than criminal court.

For instance, I intentionally run over someone.

I can get tried in criminal court for the crime, having to spend time in jail for the crime that occured or whatever.

And I can get tried in civil court to pay for hospital bills, loss of wages, emotional distress, etc.

Don't confuse the two.

Answer 6

i've got considered study that criminal immigrants are much less probably to commit crime than the close by inhabitants (they are screened to come again in, undergo in innovations) and unlawful immigrants are greater probably to. in spite of the incontrovertible fact that, the biggest subject is the revolving door and lack of ability to music people who do commit crime, that's why you spot that time-honored of seven or 9 (I forget which) convictions in line with convicted unlawful in accordance to 3 FBI learn or different. people have been utilising borders to evade duty for crime as a results of fact that long earlier Butch Cassidy did. those might on no account be enable in legally, and we don't choose them in any respect. i may well be all over the belief of determining what to do with the best sort here jointly as securing our borders and slicing welfare sort advantages (i might even carry off on the college difficulty for a 300 and sixty 5 days or 2) see you later as we deported all gang contributors illegally here and all convicted criminals alongside with DUI violators here. DHS says 650,000 would be in our close by jails and state prisons from which they are actually not deported, commonly, this 3 hundred and sixty 5 days on my own. What do you think of the immigration photograph might look like if those have been long gone? whilst they are actually not even going for that low putting fruit, and are not policing advantages, who're they kidding making vast splashes with raids against the type gainfully employed? This needs a answer, yet not something they are doing makes me think of they choose one.

Answer 7

civil court is different from criminal court. the burden of proof is less and the person is not really tried in a civil court. i think that civil court is for deciding monetary damages. im pretty sure that you dont go to jail if you are found liable in civil court.

Answer 8

In the civil trial, they aren't being tried for crime, strictly speaking. So, no, it isn't technically illegal, even though they are being tried twice for the same deed.

Answer 9

You can be tried twice for the same crime legally, for example, you can be tried for two separate acts of robbery...But you can not be tried for the exact same incident twice, unless (I'm not 100% sure) you want to reopen a case or try yourself to prove your innocence. I am positive that you can appeal the decision. It is the fifth amendment in the bill of rights: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation (from http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm).

Answer 10

No, that its the same trial, it is just in different courts.

To be tried for the same thing would be like to say Bob goes and commits murder. He gets away scot free. Now say the defense decides to file for the same thing again, that to be tried twice.