Shouldn't he be in jail or worse if he's paying the victims family because doesn't that mean he did something (no pun intended)
2007-08-31 15:40:07 · 15 answers · asked by Allen 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
There was not enough proper evidence to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of actually committing the murders.
However, the family filed a "civil suit" and proved that while a jury did not find him guilty, there is enough evidence that he was likely the cause and prove that he has reasonably caused a loss. Keep in mind that this doesn't mean he did it, or that he had anything to do with it at all.
2007-08-31 15:48:15 · answer #1 · answered by mj69catz 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe that O.J. is guilty but he was cleared by a jury of his peers on the criminal charges. The civil suit brought by the families in civil court are what has him owing money. I don't believe that he should have to pay. Without criminal culpability there can be no civil responsibility and the civil lawsuit angle is a blight on justice brought into play by trial lawyers so they can earn more money. This in my mind counts as double jeopardy, a fine legal line has been drawn in case law that allows separation of criminal and civil suits for the same crime. It's just wrong. Again I feel that O.J. did commit the crimes but he was cleared in criminal court so he should have no civil liability.
2007-08-31 15:51:47 · answer #2 · answered by lawagoneer 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The judge acquitted Simpson of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman but the civil court rendered judgment against Simpson ordering him to pay the Brown and Goldman families specific sum of money. Confusing judgments but obviously that is how our laws work.
2007-08-31 15:56:35 · answer #3 · answered by Belen 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He was found not guilty i criminal court (which just means that the jury felt he hadn't been proven to be guilty) but he lost a lawsuit in civil court., where the requirement is "preponderance of evidence" and not "beyond a reasonable doubt" like in criminal court.
2007-08-31 15:48:38 · answer #4 · answered by Judy 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He was found "responsible" for the deaths of his ex and her friend in a civil court of law. In civil court, one can admit "evidence" that can't be allowed in criminal court. So actually one should be asking why in the hell he is walking the streets when he did in fact murder 2 people. If there was enough evidence in a civil trial to find him responsible for their deaths, doesn't anyone question what got excluded and why????
2007-08-31 16:08:25 · answer #5 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There's civil liability and criminal liability and the standard for conviction and punishment for each are not the same. The law is written this way so the rich and those in government can buy there way out of crimes or ruin a poor man for a non crime.
2007-08-31 15:50:39 · answer #6 · answered by 4warned 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The posters are correct, but one is not found "guilty" in a civil case. OJ was found liable for the deaths of his ex in civil court. That doesn't mean he killed her, just that he is somehow liable for her death and found to owe her family money as retribution.
2007-08-31 15:52:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because civil and criminal cases are totally different. You can be found not guilty in a criminal case and still be used for liability(pain/suffering/loss) in a civil case. The burden of proof are different.
2007-08-31 15:48:26 · answer #8 · answered by karen 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was found guilty in a civil suit by Rod Goldman's family and Nicole's family family.
2007-08-31 15:44:15 · answer #9 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Mel (first poster) is totally right. OJ was found guilty in a civil suit brought by the Goldman's and Nicole's family.
2007-08-31 15:45:45 · answer #10 · answered by Leah 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋