2007-09-16 03:19:53 · 6 answers · asked by bwoo 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The standard for guilt in a criminal trial is higher - beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil trial it's more like "we're pretty damned sure he did it so he pays".
2007-09-16 03:27:56 · answer #1 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In that particular case it was the requirement of evidence. In a criminal trial, the State has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil matter, the plaintiffs need to prove their side by a preponderance of the evidence. In the civil case therefore, the Goldmans and the Browns needed only to prove that it was likely that O.J. was responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. There is no matter of gulity or not guilty invilved in a civil suit. It is a matter of proving damages only.
2007-09-16 10:54:25 · answer #2 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's easier to be found guilty in a civil trial than criminal. In a criminal trial, the jury has to believe he's guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Plus, Judge Ito was so star struck, he was playing right into OJ's defense team.
In a civil trial, just the "preponderance of evidence" has to point to the defendant's guilt, as it did.
2007-09-16 10:28:49 · answer #3 · answered by LolaC☼ 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A criminal conviction demands that the accused be found "guilty without a shadow of a doubt". Any reasonable doubt must come down in favor of the accused. In theory this is called "100% justice" because the state must feel ASSURED that the person that is charged is indeed GUILTY
In civil action, you only have to be more believable or tilt the scales in your favor. All that is required for victory is that a preponderance of truth or evidence seem to support your allegation(s). This is called "51/49 justice" because all that is required is for one side to be more believable than the other, hence the term "tilt the scales of justice".
*
2007-09-16 10:43:51 · answer #4 · answered by dreadneck 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's about the burden of proof. There is a higher standard of proof that the prosecution needs to send someone to jail, then there is for a civil case where only money is involved.
An accuital from murder only ment that it couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In the civil case they got enough on him to make him pay.
2007-09-16 10:28:06 · answer #5 · answered by Mike K 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Right...he was found not guilty of murder/but "responsible for the murder" in a civil court. Don't get it either.....I am so so sick of that Goldman freak
2007-09-16 10:28:55 · answer #6 · answered by dreampo 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋