|
|
Post by myamber20 on Mar 11, 2006 19:34:05 GMT -6
I just can't see where say OJ Simpson is found not guilty of murder but he has to pay in a civil suit for wrongful death but then he was not convicted of this and he has to still pay??
Same for Robert Blake and others
|
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 11, 2006 19:44:35 GMT -6
I just can't see where say OJ Simpson is found not guilty of murder but he has to pay in a civil suit for wrongful death but then he was not convicted of this and he has to still pay?? Same for Robert Blake and others The burden of proof is lower in a civil case, Carolyn. It's way lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt." |
|
|
|
Post by californian on Mar 11, 2006 19:55:23 GMT -6
I just can't see where say OJ Simpson is found not guilty of murder but he has to pay in a civil suit for wrongful death but then he was not convicted of this and he has to still pay?? Same for Robert Blake and others Criminal offenses can be both a "crime" and a "tort." A "tort" is a civil wrong, for which damages may be exacted. The standard for recovery in a civil suit is that the damages be proven "by a preponderance of the evidence," as opposed to the much stricter standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case. That's what happened to OJ, and probably will happen to Robert Blake. |
|
|
|
Post by happygrandmab on Mar 12, 2006 11:46:32 GMT -6
robert blake was found culpable in the wrongful death suit initiated by the family of bonnie lee blakely. the judgement was $30,000,000. the jurors, in post deliberation interviews, said they pondered the question of how to place a monetary value on a life.
this past week blake asked the judge to overturn the award
|
|
|
|
Post by californian on Mar 12, 2006 14:36:25 GMT -6
robert blake was found culpable in the wrongful death suit initiated by the family of bonnie lee blakely. the judgement was $30,000,000. the jurors, in post deliberation interviews, said they pondered the question of how to place a monetary value on a life. this past week blake asked the judge to overturn the award[/b] that's an absolutely common post-judgment motion. The thing to remember is, the judgment amounts are telephone numbers. If there aren't assets available to satisfy the judgment, all you have is very expensive toilet paper. |
|
|
|
Post by happygrandmab on Mar 12, 2006 15:00:10 GMT -6
...and murderers with no culpability  |
|
|
|
Post by chazz on Mar 12, 2006 17:54:05 GMT -6
I just can't see where say OJ Simpson is found not guilty of murder but he has to pay in a civil suit for wrongful death but then he was not convicted of this and he has to still pay?? Same for Robert Blake and others The burden of proof is lower in a civil case, Carolyn. It's way lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt." I believe it always is based upon "the preponderance of the evidence" (called "the balance of probabilities" in the UK) and was defined in a UK case as being "more probable than not"; which I believe is identical, if not similar, to the definition used in the US. I doubt the burden of proof is ever "clear and convincing" ---- Clear and convincing evidence is the intermediate level of burden of persuasion sometimes employed in the US civil procedure. In order to prove something by "Clear and convincing evidence" the party with the burden of proof must convince the trier of fact that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. This is a lesser requirement than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" which requires that the trier of fact be all but certain of the truth of the matter asserted, but a stricter requirement than proof by "preponderance of the evidence," which merely requires that the matter asserted seem more likely true than not. from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preponderance_of_evidence#Clear%20and%20convincing%20evidence---- Chazz |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2006 11:50:18 GMT -6
As pointed out above, the burden of proof is different, but also, the elements the plaintiff (MVS/family or DA/prosecutor) has to prove are a little different, too. A wrongful death suit looks for causation--e.g. the jury ultimately decides whether it is more likely than not that Mr. X "caused" the victim's death. Wrongful death suits are brought against people never charged criminally for a death, ranging from deaths caused by a non-drunk driving car accident to surgeons and doctors to prescription drug companies. For a first degree murder prosecution, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that the defendant's actions were unlawful and purposeful (without mistake, accident, self defense, etc) in causing the victim's death. Although the prosecution must also prove (and do so beyond a reasonable doubt) the causation element, the heart of a criminal conviction rests upon showing culpability--e.g. the jury ultimately decides if it is beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. X intended to act as he did and that his actions resulted in the victim. This is a very abbreviated explanation, but hopefully it will help explain some of the differences. When it comes to legal theories, it is impossible to summarize them into simple AND comprehensive soundbites.  |
|
