I think it's not.
I think if you are found Not Guilty in crimminal court than a)that's it you can not be sued for the same crime or b)the burden of proof shoul be made the same as a criminal trial
What do you think?
2007-09-18 01:03:53 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I agree with you, J.S.
Yes, even in O.J.'s case, where even though the jury found him not guilty, I'm convinced that he did it.
But consider a case that isn't burdened with the same level of controversy as O.J.'s, let's say someone who was accused of a crime but really is innocent, and the jury decides in his favor. I certainly don't think it would be fair for someone to bring a civil suit against that person, but there are people who would do that. In this hypothetical situation they'd be making an innocent person pay for something he didn't do.
So, I don't think people should be able to file a civil suit against someone for circumstances he/she's been acquitted of. It flies in the face of the good intentions our legal system was originally intended to possess.
2007-09-18 01:34:36 · answer #1 · answered by nyghte_owl 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is very fair the following reason. Because a criminal conviction has a major impact on ability to work and to live in society, the "burden of proof" is very strict and requires there to be no doubt possible.
A civil penalty is about redressing the balance between the parties and therefore works on a lesser burden of proof - what is called the balance of probabilities.
Thus "not guilty" in English law includes the Scottish law concept of "not proven" - it is not necessarily proof of innocence only of inability to prove guilt. If a civil court decides that damage was caused at least the injured person gets some recompense.
2007-09-18 08:17:41 · answer #2 · answered by morwood_leyland 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well I think you answered your own question by the way it was stated It may or may not be fair that is someones opinion.
Clearly under today's law you can. Remember a criminal court system is for just that a criminal act now a civil court is to resolve issues between two parties. I can sue you in a civil law suit for say breech of contract I would not be able to file criminal charges against you if you did nothing criminal. the two are separate causes hope this helps
2007-09-18 08:16:14 · answer #3 · answered by Gary D 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You would have to write all of the civil laws in the US and in Great Britain.
In a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the state. The jury must decide, based on reasonable doubt. So there is a high burden of proof.
In a civil case, the plaintiff must have the preponderance of evidence in his favor to prevail. That means 51% of the evidence must favor the plaintiff. So the burden is much lower.
2007-09-18 08:30:46 · answer #4 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They carry a different standard of proof. One is civil and one is not.
No it should not be made the same burden than in criminal trials! You aren't talking about someones liberty! Except for contempt!
I can just see divorces have to be proved by beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, maybe there would be fewer divorces!
2007-09-18 08:10:07 · answer #5 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely fair, J.S.
Consider a case I was "in on." A car rear-ended another car on an icy road. Someone in the car that was hit was ejected, not wearing a seatbelt. A third vehicle struck that person, who died.
The person whose car rear-ended the other was cleared of criminal charges. It was an accident. But the family of the person who died sued that driver for far more than the insurance coverage, and the driver of the third vehicle, a commercial truck, also sued because the delay following the accident destroyed his load of perishable goods.
Don't you think they had a right to sue?
2007-09-18 08:13:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
if there are still unanswered aspects of the case, such as evidence which was not previously admissable or new evidence, then I think it is an option that should be available.
What isn't fair is that in reality it is an option only to rich people or those who have sold their story to a newspaper.
2007-09-18 08:11:43 · answer #7 · answered by Bart S 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I think it is fair. The burden of proof is not as stringent and the person should somehow be punished.
2007-09-18 08:10:53 · answer #8 · answered by duke 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
in a criminal case its the crown or state vs the offender in a civil suit its one person against another
2007-09-18 08:11:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely. Just because you got away with something and the state can't prosecute you is no reason the victim can't be come after you.
2007-09-18 09:10:55 · answer #10 · answered by austin j 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋