I find it a double standard to be aquitted by a legal jury of your peers in a criminal trial and still be allowed to be found financially responsible for the same criminal actions of which you were aquitted. It makes no sense at all to me!
2007-02-12 16:41:29 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Thanks everyone for answering, but i am aware of the burdens of proof of each of the types of trial. I need to be clearer. If the criminal case requires reasonable doubt it stands to reason the threshold for responsibility in a civil case must be unreasonable or beyond reasonable. I am no fan of O.J. BY ANY MEANS but those who scream for his guilt; too bad you weren't on his jury. You could have had him fried.
2007-02-12 17:04:18 · update #1
The burden of proof is different. In a criminal case, the state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, a plaintiff usually must only prove liability by a preponderence of the evidence (more likely than not). Easier case.
I know it's simple, but that's the answer.
2007-02-12 16:45:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
How could it be a double standard? A double standard is when two different standards are applied to the same type of situation. That does not apply to what you are talking about.
In a Criminal Trial the issue is was a "law" broken.
In a Civil Trial the issue is are "damages" applicable.
You can be innocent in a criminal trial and still have liability for damages. Or vice versa.
2007-02-13 01:03:38 · answer #2 · answered by bigrob 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The burden of proof is higher in a criminal trial, the charges have different names, and in a civil trial, it is for money, not time or punishment. It makes a lot of sense- it's harder to put people in jail, you should want it that way.
2007-02-13 00:44:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
because there is two types of "justice"
criminal and civil
in criminal you are punished for a criminal act and face consequences.
in civil you get no "punishment" you just owe money to the other party.
Look, oj got off the hook for some ungodly reason in the criminal courts.
but he lost in civil court. He deserved to be prosecuted for both
and lastly in criminal court you have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. in civil court you are judged based on the evidence in hand.
2007-02-13 00:46:00 · answer #4 · answered by ash08love 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
criminal trials go by "beyond a reasonable doubt", but civil does not, dog.
2007-02-13 00:44:50 · answer #5 · answered by leroy_w_jackson 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
criminal trial needs proof beyond resonable of doubt
2007-02-13 00:49:48 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are two separate entities. Criminal is you offended everyone, Civil is the person or people that you hurt. They are entitled to be compensated for damages.
2007-02-13 00:44:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Cuz OJ is guilty, $ cant buy justice
2007-02-13 00:44:51 · answer #8 · answered by CDog 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋