My question stems from O.J.'s murder trial, where he was found not guilty of the crime, but now owes $30M in the civil suit. Isn't that hippocritical?
2007-09-18 04:55:30 · 10 answers · asked by marathonbdogg 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
in a CRIMINAL proceeding, there has to be PROOF of guilt BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT---in a civil case, there does NOT have to be such proof... just the ability to be held liable.
The different court systems have different burdens of proof. To be found guilty in a criminal proceeding, the state must show beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of the crime charged. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a difficult burden to meet. In a civil case the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is responsible for any damages. Numerically, a preponderance of the evidence is a showing of a 51% certainty that the defendant is responsible. Beyond a reasonable doubt requires a showing of guilt closer to 100%.
2007-09-18 05:02:55 · answer #1 · answered by LittleBarb 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This has already been asked and answered.
OJ's case is not hippocritical. In criminal, you have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil, the judgment goes in the direction of preponderance of the evidence. Did you never take a civics class?
2007-09-18 12:02:51 · answer #2 · answered by Flatpaw 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In criminal proceedings, proof of guilt must be established "beyond a reasonable doubt"; which is 100% certainty. All 12 jurors must be unanimous with the verdict, whether it be for conviction or acquittal; or a hung jury may result, which my consequently result in a retrial or the case being dropped.
In civil proceedings, proof of culpability is based on a "preponderance of the evidence"; which basically is a common sense assessment of responsibility. Only 9 out of 12 jurors need to agree on a verdict. If a defendant is found responsible, a judgment is entered against the defendant. Failure to pay the judgment may result in criminal prosecution.
2007-09-18 12:16:55 · answer #3 · answered by kontrolfreak66 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope. Criminal cases are based on "beyond a reasonable doubt" or close to 100%
Civil litigation's are based on a "preponderance of evidence."
Which means if the jury or judge is more than 50% certain that something happened one way or the other, he can rule in that way's favor.
2007-09-18 12:04:57 · answer #4 · answered by Kevy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not that he was found "innocent" - It is that the jury could not find him guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" - which is why he is held civilly liable. I think it is kind of like "this is the best we can do because we know he is guilty but we don't feel it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt" -
2007-09-18 12:03:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Civil law and criminal law have different standards of evidence and different systems to determine charges, penalties, judgements and awards. To have been found innocent of the criminal charge of murder was one thing and OJ avoided a possible death sentence. There was no compensation offered to the Simpson family in the criminal case. They chose to continue to harrass OJ and to pursue financial awards by filing charges in civil court.
2007-09-18 12:07:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because OJs trial was a crime in and of itself. Puniative damages means that he was found guilty by evidence and actions even though a jury couldnt pull their head out.
2007-09-18 12:04:24 · answer #7 · answered by Stephanie 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Civil courts and criminal courts have a different standard of proof so yes.
2007-09-18 12:15:39 · answer #8 · answered by smedrik 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because he was guilty as hell, but the jury blew it big time!
2007-09-18 12:02:54 · answer #9 · answered by Bill 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't get this either
2007-09-18 12:00:52 · answer #10 · answered by Con4Life 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋