I believe that it is unfair. An example would be O.J. Simpson. He was found NOT-GUILTY, but paid millions. I call BS on that one. I believe he is innocent. If he did it, props to getting away with it my man.
2006-09-19 16:37:22 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I think so. They are different court systems. He was found not-guilty and guilty. If the criminal court system fails I think there should be another option.
2006-09-19 16:41:29 · answer #1 · answered by Justsyd 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not unfair. If you have ever seen most criminal indictments, they have several levels of charges listed, not just one.
You can be held criminally negligent for your actions according to the laws of your state, just like speeding, etc. However, since there were other damages, wrongful death, you can be held liable in the civil courts for the past and future economic damages, and the loss of the advice, companionship, care, guidance, etc., of the individual (I'm speaking of the children from loss of their mother).
The difference is the "standard" of proof. In civil courts it is the "preponderance of the evidence". Clearly, that standard was upheld.
The OJ trial was nothing more than a joke.
Ask yourself this:
Why didn't he just turn himself into the police as opposed to running if he was so innocent?
Innocent people just don't do that. It was only his "fame" that he was even allowed to keep driving. It was only his money that kept him out of jail.
And why would you "props to getting away with it my man"? Are you truly that blinded by famous people?
2006-09-19 23:46:45 · answer #2 · answered by D 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Criminal court and civil court have different standards of guilt. In criminal court, you must find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; in civil court, there's no reasonable doubt standard, and you only have to prove that it's likely that the person did what he's accused of. I don't think that suing someone in civil court even though they've been proven innocent in criminal court is unethical or wrong; sometimes it is the only recourse the victims or their families have.
2006-09-19 23:42:46 · answer #3 · answered by dcgirl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The guilty have to pay one way or the other. OJ Simpson, Robert Blake and Michael Jackson may have been found not guilty by stupid jurors who were blinded by their star status, but all three of them were guilty, and if they end up loosing everything they own that still won't be justice.
2006-09-19 23:43:49 · answer #4 · answered by October 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's absolutely fair! Just because they aren't criminally responsible doesn't mean they aren't still responsible. Look at criminal negligence and civil negligence. Civil negligence is merely a deviation from what a "reasonable person" would do.
Criminal negligence is a GROSS deviation from what a reasonable person would do. That's a pretty specific difference, and a VERY wide gap! The person is still clearly negligent, but may not be "grossly" negligent.
2006-09-19 23:46:08 · answer #5 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
remember fail and right and the America Justice system are not the same thing.
The criminal and the civil law is seperate in our nation, so civil cases often come from crminal cases
2006-09-19 23:41:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Johnny Cochran ! ! ! Someone told me you had passed.
2006-09-19 23:40:52 · answer #7 · answered by oatie 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you one hundred percent!!! i don't know what we can do about it.
2006-09-19 23:45:25 · answer #8 · answered by mjt 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋