Originally posted by red
First, red wrote:
"OJ was found guilty in a civil trial of murder, yet he is free to walk. this is america, if you have the lawyers and the money, you can beat our legal system"
to which Terry responded;
"That's very misleading. Of course he is free to walk - he was found NOT guilty in a criminal trial with a jury of his peers. Personally, I always felt that the civil trial was a way to work around our system in terms of double jeopardy. For a democracy and a republic, it was a very dangerous precedent, imo. It undermines everything the Founding Fathers stood for."
.
I was responding to Terry's comment, "Personally, I always felt that the civil trial was a way to work around our system in terms of double jeopardy. For a democracy and a republic, it was a very dangerous precedent, imo. It undermines everything the Founding Fathers stood for."
I'm not quite sure what Tery meant by it. Civil trials have followed criminal trials for the same deeds forever. This was not something new in the OJ situation, and it really did not set any precedant.
Criminal trials and civil trials have different issues and different standards of proof for success. It is not that unusual for someone to be both "not guilty" in the criminal trial yet found liable in a civil trial for the same activity.
In a criminal trial the government is trying to punish the person for what was done. he might go to prison,be fined, etc. The criminal trial has a standard of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt". The juror must believe he did it "beyond a reasonable doubt" before voting "guilty" and the verdict must be unanimous, all jurors agreeing to it for the guy to be convicted.
In a civil trial the people that were injured (the plaintiffs) are suing for compensation for the injury inflicted. The standard of proof is some form of a "preponderance of evidence", "more likely than not" etc. This is much lower than the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt". The civil trial verdict requires only that a simple majority of the jurors agree for the person to be held liable..
The standard is much higher in the criminal trial because the guy can be sent to prison or in some way punished by the state. The standard is lower in a civil trial when all he has to do is pay money to compensate the people that were injured.
The difference between the OJ criminal trial and the later civil trial filed by the family was not surprising at all.

Comment