A man found innocent of the charges is ordered to pay and held responsible how can any court allow this?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070807/wr_nm/simpson_videogame_dc

This proves the justice system is flawed and downright unjust. I know there are many people who still say he did it but you have no proof to back it up. Innocent until proven guilty unless you get a civil court jury full of incompetents.

Answer 1

In a criminal case, that is to be found guilty of a crime and liable for prison, you must be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Some texts estimate that 80-90% or more of the evidence needs to be against you.

In a civil case, that is to be found liable for financial consequences of the crime, the legal burden is a "preponderance of the evidence," or just slightly over half.

I don't think its particularly unjust. Its like saying "We think O.J. is probably guilty, but there exists a reasonable doubt that he is not."


Who's the Einstein putting thumbs down on everyone who explained how the criminal/civil justice system works? lol

Answer 2

The standard of proof is different for criminal and civil cases. In a criminal case, a conviction only results when guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, the standard of proof is "balance of probability". Guilt (or--more accurately--responsibility) must only be proven to be more likely than not.

This is the instruction that the judge would have given to the jury in the civil case, and they WOULD have been incompetent (as you allege) if they had applied the criminal standard of proof.

I remember that a few years ago in my province, a government employee was charged with theft. He was acquitted in court, but fired from his job nevertheless. It could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he stole the stuff (so he avoided a criminal record), but it was shown to be more likely than not that he was guilty of theft. Employers have a right to be able to trust employees.

If everything had to be proven to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", people would be getting away with murder for breach of contract, negligence, and other civil cases.

You will note that when an accused person is acquitted, the verdict is "not guilty" as opposed to "innocent". I hope that you are not so naive as to imagine that acquitted persons are necessarilty innocent.

Answer 3

I'm not a Muslim or anything, but how is wearing a headscarf any worse than our culture dictating that women don't let their thongs hand out and men don't wear extremely tight leather pants. Why does our culture require us to wear clothes at all? Weren't we all "given" our beautiful bodies. Look, I have no problem questioning how Islam treats women in general, or questioning any aspect of any organized religion for that matter, but the scarf requirement would be one of the least likely points I'd bring up when discussing Islam. The headscarf can be looked at just like a social norm. Their men wear pants, turbans, and long beards too, for example. Remember, our females are NOT allowed to go completely naked in public. I would say that some females in the U.S. dress very liberally and somewhat offensively, and they usually do it exactly because they know they are turning heads. While I do not endorse Islam (or any religion, really) as an absolute basis of social norms, their modesty of dress is, in practice, not anything more than a social norm, not worse than some of the overly-liberal clothing worn by some females in our own culture, and should be the least of worries, in my opinion, when discussing the oppression of females in the Islam world. Some view our physical culture as almost pornographic and overly reliant on projecting a sexual image. While I, personally, would never exchange the freedoms of fashion that our society allows us, and am perfectly happy with the each-to-their-own philosophy that we have, I don't really consider a very conservative code of dress to be offensive. That, by itself, hardly limits a Muslim woman from anything. Now, if you wish to discuss other things...

Answer 4

I disagree -- the burden of proof is much lower in civil court, so you don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed them, only using a preponderance of the evidence.

And since the monetary judgment was handed down years ago and he hasn't even TRIED to pay, a judge is completely within the law to force him to pay and even garnish his wages -- which is just what he's doing, since OJ can't get a real job. If he had a judgment against him and were flipping burgers at a McDonald's, they'd be able to garnish his wages, so why can't they do it to OJ?

Answer 5

Criminal court is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil court is whoever the judge/jury believes more.

Answer 6

He was guilty as sin and everyone knows it. Otherwise he would have found the people who killed them by now (like he said he was going to do). He should pay for the crime, he got lucky and got off in the criminal trial but not in the civil trial.

Answer 7

The flaw in the justice system is that OJ was acquitted in criminal court.
A lower burden of proof is required in civil cases. I think OJ should pay for what he did, one way or the other.

Answer 8

I think it is pretty much understood and accepted that OJ Simpson is guilty as hell. He caused a lot of problems and innocent people were killed because of him. I don't think for a second that this guy is innocent.

One of these days he will write a book : "How I Did It".

Answer 9

you can be found not guilty by a court of law, but then on the same pretenses you can be held accountable by means of a civil trial as did O.J. Simpson.

Answer 10

Our constitution is supposed to deney double jeopardy, or being tried twice for the same of fence.
But here they clearly bringing him into court twice over the incident. :(
Just proves the Justice system is corrupt. :(