Robert Blake and O.J. aside, would you consider it fair if it happened to you? Isn't it really double jeopardy?
2007-03-01 17:23:21 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
How do you know they were guilty? The question is if it happened to you, how would you feel if you were convicted in public opinion, but not by law?
2007-03-01 17:36:00 · update #1
Nope, Why you ask because double jepordy is being tried in the same court twice.
being tried in a criminal court of law and being tried in a civil court, are two different courts, therefore not double jepordy.
2007-03-01 17:34:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes you should be liable in a civil court. You mentioned just two, Blake and OJ. There are thousands of others, less famous ones that had money, best lawyers and walked after horrible crimes. It helps the victim's family get a little closure. Even then anything the court awards is seldom paid. It helps the victim's loved ones some even if they don't receive a cent.
2007-03-01 17:40:03 · answer #2 · answered by Joyce D 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its not double jeopardy civil and criminal laws are no where near the same.. and we both know they were guilty so they should pay for getting away with murder...
2007-03-01 17:31:53 · answer #3 · answered by dat_gurl01 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it is not double jeopardy. They have to be much more tough when it comes to proving criminal guilt and taking away somebody's freedom but it doesn't not mean that the person is not probably responsible.
2007-03-01 17:31:32 · answer #4 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OJ won in criminal court for the exact same reason he lost in civil court. let me put it this way. OJ, how much is it worth to get you acquitted of murder. everything he has, so about 12 million dollars. to the parents of ron goldman and nicole brown: how much is it worth to prove in court that OJ killed your children. as it turned out about 12 million. and you all thought a lower standard of proof in a civil action matters. Dan Petrocelli is a far superior lawyer than OJ's lawyers. he was out of money by then and got the best attorney he could afford. but in the criminal trial he paid for the best, period.
2007-03-02 01:46:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
specific. based on the severity of a criminal case, the fees of the criminal case is probably not suited to those of the civil case. even nevertheless, it particularly isn't a probable state of affairs - in a criminal case, the guy would desire to be discovered in charge previous a useful doubt, collectively as in a civil case, the alternative isn't so concrete.
2016-12-18 03:57:24 · answer #6 · answered by binford 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The onus to prove one guilty is lower is civil court, as apposed to criminal court. It is two separate court hearings and one is a private (civil) matter and the other is state or criminal.
2007-03-01 17:59:29 · answer #7 · answered by Cherry_Blossom 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋