I know that there are a lot of people out there who believe that O.J. Simpson really murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. However, he WAS acquitted of murder. According to a court of law, he was innocent. However, he was sued afterwards for wrongful death and was convicted. Don't get me wrong. I sympathize with the Browns and the Goldmans. However, it seems to me that the murder acquittal was somehow abrogated by the wrongful death conviction. In my view, it's almost tantamount to being charged more than once for the same crime, and that's just wrong.
2007-02-13 02:17:36 · 9 answers · asked by tangerine 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
There used to be something called "double jeopardy" which prevented a person from being tried twice for the same crime. That's been gone for some time now, along with many other rights we used to take for granted, like free speech. Now if someone brands it "hate speech", it's forbidden. Trouble is, it's only selectively enforced. Neo-Nazis are still free to spew their poison about Jews. The Islamo-fascist Imans can still call for the murder of Americans in general and Jews in particular. But I digress. Double jeopardy has gone the way of free speech. It's only for certain people in certain situations. This country guarantees lawyers a living. If they can't nail ya in criminal court, hey, go to civil court and start over. It's easier to convict there. You don't have the "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing to contend with. If you think they did it, burn 'em! I agree with you. It's wrong to try the same guy twice for the same thing. But right and wrong no longer applies here. It no longer matters what's right or wrong in this country. What's legal is all that matters, and that's a frightening thought, especially for someone like me, because everything the Nazis did was perfectly legal under their laws. You know what they say. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it!
2007-02-13 02:34:18 · answer #1 · answered by texasjewboy12 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
People are protected from trial for the same crime. But people can be tried for different crimes. Many of the murders committed during the "civil rights" era of the sixties are now be tried as "civil rights" violations under federal statutes. Those people could not be tried for murder again if they were found innocent.
The main difference in the OJ case is that "wrongful death" does not carry the burden of "reasonable doubt". That difference is because "wrongful death" only carries a monetary penalty. It is a considered a crime between two citizens not a crime against the state. The person who brings the suit bears all of the coust of their attorneys. There are no state prosecuters involved.
Generally a "wrongful death" suit follows a guilty verdict. This allows the victums to recover money for pain and suffering. The Browns took a chance with their money by filing this suit because they felt that they could win the case and they were right.
2007-02-13 02:36:44 · answer #2 · answered by Ernie 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The burden of proof is different between a civil and a criminal trial.
I'm sure you heard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' - well that is the highest standard for proof in the United States and is the standard in criminal trials. I believe that basically means if there is ANY doubt, no matter how small or inconsequential, then you must find for the Defendant.
In a civil case, the burden is usually preponderance of evidence. I believe that means if you put the evidence for the Defendant on one side of the scales of justice and evidence for the Plaintiff on the other side, as long as the scales tip ever so slightly in favor of one, that is how you must find.
Wikipedia does a good job explaining burden of proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
In the OJ trials, different burdens of proof, different verdicts. he was charged with a crime (murder) in the criminal trial and charged with civil offenses in the civil trial.
It works much the same way that if you were charged with a DUI and for running a red light (which caused the traffic stop which lead to the DUI). You might be found guilty of running a red light but found innocent of the DUI. Different charges.
I believe that it is good that we have two different burden of proofs. It helps to protect us, but give us recourse if there is an injustice.
2007-02-13 02:54:10 · answer #3 · answered by vbrink 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is a difference between criminal courts and civil courts in this country. OJ was charged and found not guilty in criminal court. He was sued in civil court and found liable (not convicted) for the death. There is also a difference in standard of proof between criminal and civil courts. The standard of proof in criminal court is "beyond a reasonable doubt" while in civil court it is "by a preponderance of the evidence" (or by the greater weight of the evidence). In research asking folks to attempt to quantify these degrees of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt was put at about 91% sure, while a preponderance was about 51% -- a large difference which may account for the ability to find liability in civil court in spite of an acquittal in criminal court.
2007-02-13 02:22:39 · answer #4 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Acquittal is not an indication of innocence. It is merely a determination that there was insufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty.
There is a difference in the the level of proof required for guilt in a criminal court and repsonsibility in a civil court.
2007-02-13 02:21:31 · answer #5 · answered by Joe Rockhead 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He was not convicted of wrongful death, the families won their wrongful death suit against him.
Verdicts in a Civil case are very different from criminal verdicts. A criminal case requires "guilty beyond all reasonable doubt", a civil case is not that stringent. Using the evidence the jury had to determine was he most likely responsible for their death, but not beyond all doubt.
2007-02-13 02:21:18 · answer #6 · answered by Susie D 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
criminal and Civil courts are very diverse, and characteristic diverse standards of evidence. In OJ, he replace into stumbled on no longer to blame interior the criminal case. In Crim courtroom the typical of evidence that would desire to be met via the prosecutor is "previous a clever Doubt", this easily potential that their will no longer be able to be any doubt that would desire to be held via a fairly prudent juror. Civil courtroom has a various typical, "via a Preponderance of the evidence", meaning the plaintiff purely desires to teach the allegations are greater probably genuine than no longer. Whats greater is that the findings of the criminal Case will no longer be able to be added forward, for sure in OJ they knew he have been stumbled on no longer-to blame, yet he could no longer use that as a protection to the civil tournament. Civil fits are additionally filed via the kin, no longer that State, and penitentiary will no longer be able to be assigned as a punishment in Civil courtroom, basically financial damages.
2016-11-03 08:25:00 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Criminal and civil law worlds apart
2007-02-13 02:20:57 · answer #8 · answered by watchman_1900 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
he got acquitted because he has influence. taking advantage of his social status makes him evade sentence
2007-02-13 02:23:33 · answer #9 · answered by shongo 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋