http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/18/blake.trial.ap/
This is an example of something I find weird: the guy is acquitted of murder charges, but people sue him. How can he be sued if he’s found not guilty of a crime? It doesn’t make sense.
The same thing happened to OJ. The fifth amendment only applies to criminal proceedings, which says that a person can’t be tried twice for the same crime. This is a civil suit, which means that it doesn’t fall under the double jeopardy ban. Even then, there are excetions for it to be possible to be tried again (There’s all kinds of crazy loopholes). Basically, criminal and civil law are two completely different and seperate things and just because one fails, doesn’t mean that the other can’t be used.
I know about how you shouldn’t be charged twice for the same crime, but I don’t understand how you can be guilty of something if you’re not guilty of it. Even though there are 2 different courts, it makes no sense that you’d be found guilty of someone’s death and then you’re not guilty and so you’re not going to jail.
What it is is that they go after you for something related. Like in this case they are suing for wrongful death. Instead of saying that he killed her, they are arguing that he could have prevented her death. It is sort of like putting the square shape in the square hole and the ciricle in the circle hole. In this instance we have laws instead of shapes and the court room is the thing that all the shapes go into. Well, this court room didn’t have a square whole, it only had a triangle and and a circle, so now they are grabbing a different shape and hoping it’ll be a triangle or a circle and go through the hole. I don’t know if this helps, but it is the best analogy that I can think of at the moment.
That is so ridiculously vague though. I could sue my dad for letting my mom die from smoking related diseases. It is absurd that people be held responsible for other people’s deaths in situations where there was nothing they could’ve done or because someone brought something unto themselves.
Well the thing is that that is why there is the court. They’ll decide if the person was responsible or not. You can say that they are, but it won’t necessarily happen. It is sort of why you have all those frivoulous lawsuits, like people suing McDonald’s for making them fat. Basically the court will decide if the person was in a positio to reasonably prevent the death incident.
Also, I should have added earlier that by nature civil is based on something that there could not result in jail (anything that could result in criminal charges wouldn’t have to be said, the person could just keep quiet about it).
I believe one of the key differences between criminal and civil law is that guilt must be proven beyond doubt in a criminal case, but merely needs to be more likely than not in a civil case. The idea is that it’s okay to fine somebody a lot of money if he’s <i>probably</i> guilty (which is the outcome of civil cases), but not okay to put him in jail (which is the outcome of criminal cases).
I know that guys, but nevertheless, when it comes down to something like_murder_, why is it that you can blame someone for it without them being guilty of it?
I think he was acquitted in criminal court because he was not “guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt”, and that he <i>was</i> declared guilty in civil court because he was more likely guilty than not. It’s not that they decided he wasn’t guilty, and then for some reason called him liable and fined him. The idea is that it <i>probably</i> was his fault that his wife died, so they fined him, but “probably” wasn’t enough to justify jail time (which would be the outcome of guilt in a criminal court).
Because they aren’t actually saying he killed her. Murder is a criminal charge, not a civil charge, and it is something that only the DA can go after. They are saying that he was responsible, for her death. It can be something as little as negligence. My earlier example about the blocks is saying that murder is one shape and it didn’t fit, so now they are trying wrongful death which is another shape. The civil and criminal cases and charges are completely different. Also, the thing that you seem to be confusing is that this isn’t dealing with murder anymore. He was cleared of the murder. It is the death itself that they are saying he is responsible for. Instead of thinking that they are trying to get money for him murdering her, you have to think, was there anything he coul have reasonably done to prevent her death? The case is no longer about murder or how she died, it is about what he did or didn’t do that resulted in her death.
This should be added here: http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_collection.asp?wacky=0
Well maybe not. but it’s weird indeed. But he’s an actor, and sueing actors means money. :\
I was just reading another story on it that added a part I missed in my book. In a civil trial with something like this, it is also base don the preponderance of the evidence and does not have to be a unanimous decision. In a criminal trial the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil case it is the preponderance of the the evidence, which just means that it was more likely than not it happened and is very low level of proof or assurance.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051119/ap_on_en_tv/blake_wife_slain
That still doesn’t make any fucking sense.
Well with a civil trial, the level of proof is much lower and the decision is doesn’t have to be unanimous. That maes it much easiesr to get a “guilty” verdict. However, since the level of proof isn’t as high as in a criminal trial, it isn’t enough to make them spend jail time or have any other criminal punishments…like the death penalty (which I believe could have been sought in the criminal case).
Think of levels of guilt as a pitcher of water.
It goes a little like this:
- Beyond a reasonable doubt
|
|
|
|
|
| - Preponderance of the evidence
|
|
| - Probable cause
|
|____________________________________________________
The little breaks represent the little measurement lines. They aren’t equal since beyond a reasonable doubt is so much higher. So the evidence you need and use might reach one level, but not another. In this case, they had a enough to bring the case to trial, so they met probable cause. Then they kept filling the pitcher to get it to reach beyond a reasonable doubt, but it was a couple hairs shy of it. However, since it was so close to beyond a reasonable doubt, they did have enough to meet preponderance of the evidence.
You also have to keep in mind that there juries were different in each case and the jury may have been exposed to the criminal case and already had a bias.
Oh I completely understand the mentality of what you and Xwing have been trying to show. But the way I think about things, that mentality makes no sense. If you’re not guilty, you’re not guilty, end of story.
No, if you’re not guilty in a criminal trial, it just means they were unable to prove you commited the crime. You might have done it, but the testimony and evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that you had.
So how can they blame you for something which they can’t prove you did??
Situation: A corpse is found. A knife is found with its blood and your fingerprints on it. You claim that your knife had been stolen a few days prior, and your friend testifies that you were with him the night of the murder. This is all the evidence available.
Should you be fined and put in jail for life, be released entirely, or be released after paying a huge fine? Our legal system has chosen the third option as the fairest, presumably because putting an innocent man in jail is unforgiveable, while fining can easily be reversed if the man is later proven innocent. I more or less agree: an irrevocable punishment (stealing years of a person’s life with jail time) should not be applied just on the basis of likelihood; but, in order to maintain any sort of legal system, there must be some punishment for likely guilt, and fining is a convenient option.
I don’t buy that. It makes no sense. “I can’t say you did anything wrong but I’m going to punish you anyway!”
We have a rediculously flawed legal system in which you can sue someone and win for selling you coffee that is “too hot.”
Hows that for an explanation?