I’ve looked around online and found summaries of the civil trial, also with explanations that the families sued him after he was found innocent of double murder in court.
And they won.
So he pays money instead of going to jail.
I don’t get it. I never have. I looked it up online and all I find is that they did sue him and that this was a victory for the families.
Uhm… I may just be pointing out my own ignorance… But double jeopardy?
I read that the law reads in the civil case that he could be found guilty if it was beyond a reasonable doubt rather than something or other about the evidence… making the burden of proof less.
But still… He was already tried and they said “Not Guilty”.
How do they do it again even if they use a less stringent ruler?
Once not guilty, always not guilty, I always thought was the idea… Not sue me once, ok… I don’t go to jail… Sue me a second time… crap… ya got me in the wallet.
Please enlighten me so I can dispose of this ignorance.
Criminal law: the State against the individual. The state alleges the individual did something bad, something illegal, something which must be punished. The state must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual accused did it. The burden of proof is high, no doubt that he did it. Once the case has been tried the state cannot try again in hope of getting a conviction next time.
Civil law: two individuals, equal before the law, come to the court to determine who is right. One side says the other side owes him money which the other side denies. The court will rule on a preponderance of the evidence (different standard here). Whichever side shows more evidence of being right wins.
And, there’s no double jeopardy consideration in civil law, no right to a jury, no finding of guilty or innocent, no 5th amendment right not to incriminate onesself, and on and on.
I just don’t get it… I understand the points you’re both saying, but if one group says “he didn’t do it” and another says “he did it… under less strenuous review…”
Doesn’t that make something of a mockery of the system?
I do understand, though, that not allowing someone to call the fifth would make a huge difference.
Why is that allowed, though? Are you supposed to march into the courtroom, sit down at the stand and be asked “Did you murder them?” and go “Urhm… Yeah.”?
(I do understand that nobody would do that and the question wouldn’t be asked, rather that they’d go about the technical details to get someone entwined… But still… Why should someone have to go into court and say “This is what I did and how I did it.”)
Isn’t that for the court to decide and take into consideration that the guy said “I plead the fifth” over and over when asked specifics?
Another point, couldn’t the federal authorities have arrested OJ after his acquittal and charged him with violating the civil rights of the murder victims? I seem to recall it’s been done before with unpopular verdicts, for instance the acquittal of the police officers in the Rodney King case.
Why? I think maybe the reason you do not understand it is that you do not understand the “infrastructure” of the legal system. As a society we are not in a vacuum where the only question is whether O.J. did it and how he should be punished. We have set up a whole system designed to deal in general terms with general issues. We are a society of laws. In some cases this may even produce injustice but it has been shown that a society governed by the rule of laws works much better than societies which are ruled by (hopefully wise) individuals. In those societies people are never really sure how the next wise judge might see things and you are subject to the whim of the ruler of the moment.
So you see a contradiction between a criminal jury declaring O.J. not guilty and a civil jury declaring him liable. Not only the legal system but the world is full of such apparent contradictions. You can be considered an illegal alien by the immigration people and a resident for tax purposes by the IRS. So what? Different bodies have different views for different purposes. Anything else is just not possible in practice.
You can still be a nation of laws even with the prevention of civil cases following a not guilty verdict in a criminal case. Being found not guilty with a higher standard of evidence only to be hosed with a multi-million dollar fine in a civil case does seem pretty nutty on the face of it. (I asked this question on the board before).
The two were NOT judging the same things. One was judging whether he was criminally guilty and the other one was judging whether he was civilly liable. Totally different questions based on different rules of evidence, lead to answers which are not necessarilly contradictory even if they may appear so from a view which is ignorant of how the legal system works.
Actually, I don’t believe this is true. You don’t have the right not to give testimony w.r.t. a civil matter, but you cannot be compelled to implicate yourself in a criminal matter. IANAL, however.
The criminal jury did not say “he didn’t do it.” They found the State failed to prove all of the elements in its case against him beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not, and did not have to, prove he didn’t do it. He only had to sow the seeds of reasonable doubt.
It’s why defense attorneys do not ask potential clients “what did you do?” but “what did the State charge you with?” because that’s what the State has to prove. If they cannot, it doesn’t mean the defendant is innocent, only that the State could not prove it. There’s a difference.
The civil court has different claims (not charges) and a different burden of proof. The plaintiff (not the State) must prove his/her claims, e.g. wrongful death (as opposed to murder) against the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence (rather than beyond a reasonable doubt). Civil claims have different elements to prove and the standard of proof is easier to reach. So even though OJ was not found guilty of murder, he was found liable for wrongful death.
Doesn’t strike me as nutty. If someone hurts me, I have a right to seek whatever remedy I want in civil court. Since I’m not a government seeking to put someone in jail, just a private party seeking monetary compensation, I don’t have to prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt, just that it’s more likely than not that the other person did in fact hurt me.
The government doesn’t have a monopoly on seeking justice, and if the government screws up their case and the accused is acquitted, why should that deprive me of my right to seek compensation from the person who hurt me?
Also, I don’t think this situation is unique to the United States. The same procedural distinction between criminal and civil exists here in Canada, and also in England & Wales, so you could see a similar outcome there.
What civil right did OJ deprive the victims of? Killing them, in and of itself is not enough; it has to deprive them of a civil right. In Rodney King’s case, the argument was that the police assault on Mr. King had been racially motivated, and therefore deprived him of federal civil rights.
I never heard any suggestion that OJ killed them because they were white, or any other civil rights motivation - just sexual jealousy and rage.
You’re mixing up two different things. In the first murder trial, OJ was not being sued. He was being prosecuted by the state.
Only in the second court case was he sued for monetary damages by private individuals (the Goldmans). In this second civil (not criminal) trial, there is no double jeopardy, because the state was not prosecuting him, and he was in no danger of being imprisoned or fined by the state.
Well sure. But is spending a week in jail worse than being fined ten million dollars? We have a standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” for crimes that may result in as little as a week in jail, yet the possibility of being bankrupted in a civil case is only judged against the “preponderence of evidence”.
I guess my argument is that I don’t understand why “more likely than not” is a good enough standard when potential multi-million dollar fines are being handed out.
It shouldn’t. My question is what standard of evidence should be used.
I must say that coming from a country where such a thing isn’t possible I too had been completely puzzled by this issue,and had to rely on this board to get some explanations.
And even though I understood the concept, I never was convinced that it was sound. I just had to accept that this was yet another irreconcilable cultural difference.
I’m interested to see that it doesn’t seem obvious and logical to all American citizens, either…
I believe that in general, people consider jail time, something you cannot take back, a much more severe punishment than money. While it is true punishment can be skewed with 1 day in jail or 10 million dollars, its seen as worse to be in jail than lose money. Thats why for a potentially lighter punishment in civil court, the burden of proof is less, and thats why these types of lawsuits are allowed
Its almost the same situation when it comes to the death penalty. Most people consider death to be worse than even life in prison, thats why there are so many obstacles for the state to hurdle if they want to put someone to death than if they simply wanted to lock them up
Because in a civil case both parties before the court are equal and the court will rule in favor of whatever party shows a preponderance of evidence. If I show by a preponderance of the evidence that you owe me money then it makes sense that the court rule in my favor.
In a criminal trial we demand a higher level of proof for several reasons. It is the state or the people against an individual and we prefer that some guilty persons may go free than some innocent persons may be punished. That is a long standing and basic tenet of western civilization.
Another reason is that the state has much more power and money at its disposal than the individual. This is also a reason in favor of prohibiting double jeopardy.
This exact case may not be possible in France but France still has the basic distinction between civil and criminal cases and different levels of proof required. That is pretty much basic to any western-style country. If I go to France and sue you and prove with a preponderance of the evidence that you owe me money the court will rule in my favor. And if I am accused of a crime in France the state still has to prove with overwhelming evidence that I am guilty. Not much different.
Now, there are substantial differences in procedure and other aspects but the basic principles underlying remain the same.
The difference is based on the parity between the opposing sides and the potential severity of the outcome.
In a criminal trial, it’s an individual against the government. Because of the disparity between these two, the individual is offered a number of protections so he won’t be railroaded by the sheer size of the prosecution. In addition, the weight of the trial is higher because the defendant is facing the possible loss of his freedom (and in some cases his life).
In a civil trial, the two sides are both private entities so neither side is presumed to have an advantage and they can oppose each other as equals. In addition, the only possible outcome of a civil trial is a loss of money so the stakes are lower.
One result of this is that in a criminal trial, the outcome is biased in favor of the defendant. The prosecution wins only by absolutely proving its case is true. If they can’t reach this level, the defense automatically wins. In a civil trial, the two sides are equal, so whichever side can prove that its case is more likely to be true wins.
O.J. was being sued for wrongful death, a tort. Essentially the plaintiffs were saying that the evidence against Mr. Simpson, though by jury decision not rising to the degree to prove him guilty of homicide beyond a reasonable doubt, was sufficient to prove by preponderance of the evidence that he in some way wrongfully brought about the death of Mrs. Simpson.
That it sounds very much like a murder trial and prosecution obfuscates the clear distinction between a civil trial over a tort and a criminal trial over an alleged criminal act.
So let’s construct a parallel. Smith and Jones are on the highway in wintry weather. Smith is doing 50 MPH down the highway on icy roads with snow falling and being blown about, obscuring vision. Smith loses control and collides with Jones’s car.
The police, investigating, charge Smith with reckless driving and speed not reasonable and prudent for the conditions. Because under the laws of the State of Hypothetical Situations, where the accident happened, Smith could face jail time for the reckless driving trial, on his lawyer’s advice Smith goes for a jury trial and is acquitted of the two charges, the jury finding that the state had not met the burden of proof required for conviction on those criminal charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Nonetheless the evidence shows that Smith’s car did plow into Jones’s, causing over $4,000 in damage and putting Jones in hospital, where he incurred a $2,200 bill. In reliance on the acquittal, Smith’s insurance company offers a minimal settlement to Jones, which he refuses, demanding his full losses. After harsh words, Jones sues Smith for those losses.
In that example, does the difference between criminal trial and civil suit become clearer? Can you see how that carries over to the O.J. case, the distinction between the criminal charge of murder and the civil tort of wrongful death?
