Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
Blogs > tickles4us > tickles |
Do you think civil lawsuits should be allowed...
Do you think civil lawsuits should be allowed... against an individual that has been acquitted or declared innocent in a court trial? I'm thinking in cases like Robert Blakes or OJ's murder trials. Is it right to allow civil court persecution of someone even if you are sure they did the crime but they were acquitted do to lack of convincing evidence? Civil court doesn't have the same requirements for proof beyond a reasonable doubt and such but yet we are talking about cases that can have decisions with devastating effects on the individuals life. Vive La Difference |
||||
|
I have concerns about this. if you're not guilty......you're not guilty. hugs V Become a blog watcher sweet_vm
| |||
|
i have concerns about this. if you're not guilty......you're not guilty. how can someone else then sue you for something and win if you are not guilty? i understand the difference between types of litigation but it also stinks of double jeopardy in a way to me that leaves innocent people open to devastation in a civil court that can take forever and drain their funds. not that i think OJ was innocent but the jury did so.....shrugs. Become a member now and get a free tote bag.
| |||
|
there are appeals on litigation and requests for retrial that could address this without allowing for a civil suit to undermine a prior conviction. i get your point Lindo. i hate to see an injustice like OJ go unpunished but in the end the man was a moron and ended up in jail anyway. and civil suits are often just vindictive and have little to do with justice. There's a famous case over here where a young black man called Steven Lawrence was murdered. Four local neds, sons of local gangsters were arrested, the evidence against them was compelling, but the police 'made mistakes' (were bribed) and so the criminal prosecution had to be dropped. It is one of the race crimes that defines most poeples' disgust of such things nowadays, over here anyways. So aye, the Lawrence boys parents had to pursue the four in civil law and it ruined them, both financially and emotionally, and still the murderers walked free because the police made such a hash of their case. A very sad story which left many over here, particularly black people, very distrusting of the law and of the police. To me, this is a prime example of a situation where when the criminal route is exhausted, the civil option should remain available. But yes, I agree entirely, there are many cases where the law has spoken and the civil courts should not be used for all the wrong reasons. More shades of grey than anything else I guess...........
| |||
|
Is it right to allow civil court persecution of someone even if you are sure they did the crime but they were acquitted do to lack of convincing evidence? Yes. First, unless we stand there and see it, you never know for sure if someone is guilty or not, hence the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold. We're talking about depriving someone of their very citizenship so the bar needs to be high. Civil suits serve a different purpose and have a lower threshold. or example, there is a car accident. two people were in the front seat, but in the accident the car rolled over and it's not completely clear which one was driving. If they can't conclusively prove who was driving the car the prosecution might not be able to meet the the threshold for conviction of a crime. However, if somebody is injured in the other car and they wish to sue they certainly might be in a better position to be financially reimbursed for hardships incurred as a result of an accident that was not their fault. They don't have to prove if Jon or Mary were driving beyond a reasonable doubt. Just that a preponderance of the evidence indicates that one of them was driving. I think it's important that people have legal recourse to be made whole in the wake of somebody else's bad behavior or irresponsibility.
| |||
|
Unless that question is decided by the same jury in the same trial, absolutely not. The ignorance of the double jeopardy prohibition (and legal sleight-of-hand to try to evade it) is alarming. The way it is done now, the losing party is out for revenge, and that's not what the framers intended at all.
| |||
|
Civil courts adjudicate different issues than the criminal court does, the burden of proof is generally less and the consequences are different. We also have the double jeopardy issue. IMO a civil trial over the same issue is a dodge around that. In situations where the legal system (police, DA, etc) was in error I believe those people should be held criminally responsible for what they did, or didn't, do. The case I think of re this kind of thing is the Duke Lacrosse case. Perhaps the right to raise a civil action should be decided at the criminal trial, but that would require law changes. Our system is full of holes IMO, and the discussion is very long and complicated. More than a forum like this can adequately cover. When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
| |||
|
Good question McTickle. There are situations I'm aware of where obviously guilty people are acquitted because of police corruption, or perhaps a legal mistake or technicality, yet everyone knows they are guilty. And there are others where there is insufficient evidence yet people may pursue things in the civil courts out of a sense of injustice or revenge, or perhaps completion. I don't think the right to raise a civil action should be curtailed, perhaps each case should be judged on its own merits? i get your point Lindo. i hate to see an injustice like OJ go unpunished but in the end the man was a moron and ended up in jail anyway. and civil suits are often just vindictive and have little to do with justice. You cannot conceive the many without the one.
| |||
|
i have concerns about this. if you're not guilty......you're not guilty. how can someone else then sue you for something and win if you are not guilty? i understand the difference between types of litigation but it also stinks of double jeopardy in a way to me that leaves innocent people open to devastation in a civil court that can take forever and drain their funds. not that i think OJ was innocent but the jury did so.....shrugs. You cannot conceive the many without the one.
| |||
|
Good question McTickle. There are situations I'm aware of where obviously guilty people are acquitted because of police corruption, or perhaps a legal mistake or technicality, yet everyone knows they are guilty. And there are others where there is insufficient evidence yet people may pursue things in the civil courts out of a sense of injustice or revenge, or perhaps completion. I don't think the right to raise a civil action should be curtailed, perhaps each case should be judged on its own merits?
| |||
|
that's civil court prosecution...or maybe it is persecution.. woop woop
| |||
|
Vive La Difference
|
Become a member to create a blog