How come a defendant found not guilty in a criminal trial can be found liable in a civil trial?

Question

If the defendant is found is found not guilty by a jury of his peers he cannot be tried again in criminal court as this is double jeapordy. However he can still be found liable (guilty) in a civil court. Who else finds this stupid? If you don't like the first verdict, oh well let's get him another way. Why have the first trial except to put him behind bars?

I appreciate all of your answers however i am aware of the different burdens of proof involved but i am still bewilderd as to why one who is found not guilty of a crime should even be taken to task for it again in any court! As for the comment about whether O. J. should be shot ; absolutely not! He was aquitted in a constitutional court by a jury of his peers who saw and heard all of the evidence. I personally am not a fan of his football or acting careers so i am not prejudiced concerning his case. If anyone has evidence that the12 jurors didn't have i would love to see it. Maybe in the future science will prove his guilt if it's true. How say you all?

To: Whatever; I am perfectly sure if they had the evidence they would have presented it. So he's guilty if there's enough to convict but don't have enough to convict, he's still guilty just can't prove it.
What a sham! I call this a double standard!
The prosecution needs to back up their charge or leave a man alone.

Answer 1

There is a different burden of proof in a civil court.

For criminal court one must be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".

In civil court you only have to be judged guilty based on a "preponderance of the evidence."

Answer 2

Funny you brought this up. I just had this discussion with our school's history teacher today.

Apparently it has to do with the standards needed to convict someone in a civil suit as opposed to a criminal suit.

In a criminal suit, guilt has to be proven beyond a shadow of doubt, where in a civil suit it is enough to convict on mere suspicion of guilt.

Stupid, right?

But what it does do is help prevent anybody from serving hard time if they are not guilty, where a civil suit will just cost them money.

Should O.J. be shot? Absolutely....but that is neither here nor there.

Answer 3

In a criminal trial, the evidence has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (100%). In a civil case, it is only by a perponderance of the evidence (51%). Crazy, I know, but that is how it works.

Answer 4

While a criminal court can order you to pay restitution to the victims, they can't actually seize your assets, like a civil court can if you don't. If you don't pay, the criminal court can only put you back in jail.

Being acquitted doesn't mean you were actually innocent, it simply means that there was not enough evidence presented to convict you.

Answer 5

It's not double jeopardy because when they talk about a person not beint tried twice they mean in the same court system.