If I thought, no better yet knew that you had?

Question

killed my son, yet the courts said you didn't. Would I be justified in suing you personally, due to my own beliefs?

Absolutely not, well except in America. Land of the free? Give me a break. More like, land of the vengeful and greedy.

The vengeful and greedy part of it would be suing. If a criminal court cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were responsible for a crime....why should you be monetarily held hostage by a grieving parent?

I think that is inherently wrong and have yet to hear a justifiable argument to the contrary.

yes, I would deserve satisfaction after my child was killed, but if I cannot criminally prove it was you, why should I be able to sue you over it?

Our civil court system is screwed up and the OJ case is a perfect example. Yes, I think he did it, but at the same time, he had his day in court and was found not guilty. That should be the end of the story.

Greed and vengence (satisfaction over my dead son at any cost) is ruining america.

Yes, their son was killed, but the courts found that simpson was not guilty of murdering him.

So in effect, a civil suit would have to essentially say in this instance that Simpson was responsible for their murder...which to me is inherently wrong.

If a person cannot be found criminally negligent, I just think it wrong that they can be sued.

Basically, if a rich person thinks you did something, you'll end up paying one way or another, whether it be attorney's, court costs or a financial judgement.

This hurts many more people than it helps. DO you really think money will replace a loved one?

If not, then why bicker over it?

Answer 1

What? Of course you're entitled to sue in civil court...the standard of guilt in criminal court is "beyond a reasonable doubt" but in civil court it's "a preponderance of the evidence," a much lower standard...ask OJ.

I hope this addresses your point, I'm not sure what would be "vengeful and greedy" about wanting some satisfaction after somebody killed my child.

Answer 2

There have been a quite a few cases where a person is not convicted of murder but has to pay for damages for murdering. I have never seen anyone complaining about it except for the people who have to do the paying. That is until now.

Remember, the civil court case also depends on a jury and the accused is allowed to bring defense. There is evidence and the right to appeal.

A person can be held financially liable for damage that person has done. Lets say you go out and trash someone's house. You go to court and they find you guilty. You go to prison. The people of the house can still sue you and get you to pay the damages. Now, lets say that you were found not guilty on the criminal charges. Lets say that the jury did not know what was going on and did not understand the evidence or that the prosecutors just did not do their job because they thought they had it in the bag. You go free. No prison for you. However, the people still have a damaged house. There is enough evidence to show that you damaged the house. They take you to court and in a civil suit you are forced to pay for the damages. Tell me how this situation is unreasonable.

Now, the Goldmans sued Simpson because their son was killed. It is perfectly reasonable that their son would have made a lot of money if he had lived. It is perfectly understandable that the Goldmans have suffered a great loss. They deserve compensation. If you think the first example was ok, then how can this situation not be ok? It involves a human life. Do you believe that a house is more valuable and more worthy of a civil lawsuit than a person?

Answer 3

Yup, sue