2007-09-17 09:54:32 · 5 answers · asked by Lord Gaston 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
yes look at the OJ Simpson case it happened to him perfect example
2007-09-17 10:02:48 · answer #1 · answered by mriee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a criminal case, a person must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But in a civil suit a person is found responsible for a death (not guilty), and the proof only need be to a reasonable certainty. That is because a finding against you criminally will land you in jail (or on death row); and a finding against you civilly only costs you money.
2007-09-17 10:05:07 · answer #2 · answered by Terri J 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because in criminal court, in order to be found guilty, the person has to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, which is 99.9 percent. To be found liable (note: not the same as guilty, and the punishment is money, not jail), the evidence only has to be about 50 percent.
2007-09-17 10:50:57 · answer #3 · answered by Hillary 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are different levels of proof at play. Criminal suit requires that guilt be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Civil suits require that "the preponderence of evidence" point to guilt.
2007-09-17 09:59:38 · answer #4 · answered by 8of2kinds 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
criminal law and civil law are governed very differently.murder equates to intent, wrongful death equates to liability.
2007-09-17 10:05:58 · answer #5 · answered by andy h. 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋