Double your jeapardy

[wesmorris]

It seems that the double jeapardy law is a crock. It steams me to no end to see people being sued in civil court for damages caused by a criminal act for which they have not been convicted. How is that justice? Man it makes me sick to think of it. O.J. for instance, should NEVER had been able to have been sued in civial court for the "pain and suffereing" caused by the loss of whomever, as he was not demonstrated to be responsible for it.

Kobe now, is getting sued in civil court as responsible for a crime he hasn't been convicted of. WTF??????????? How is this even possible? What am I missing? How the shit can you be tried twice for the same crime? That's a crock. If a suit is for damages related to a criminal act, criminal courts should determine guilt or innocence and as such, allow civil proceeding accordingly. It should NOT basically retry the case, as they are separate issues. I can't believe a judge would even HEAR a case like that. What's going on? Sheez this seems horribly wrong to me.

 

[Mystech]

To be honest this has always really confused the hell out of me. The only answer that I can come up with, inspired by my own brief brush ins with legal studies (extending only to intellectual property laws) is that the law is vast and complicated, and built up by people in positions of power seeking their own agendas. We can probably try someone civilly for something they were found innocent (or at least not guilty) of in criminal court because it happened to suit someone at some point ho happened to be in charge.

 

[robtex]

Wes I am not advocating this system as I don't like it either but I think I got somewhat of an answer. Very few things in a courtroom are black and white but are instead shades of gray. In a crimminal court hearing to be convicted of a crime it must be done beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt
The level of proof that must be established in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The proof must overcome any doubts a reasonable person would have as to its validity.
source
http://www.legal-dictionary.org/legal-dictionary-p/Preponderance-of-the-evidence.asp


This means that you have to be relltivly sure that the defendant is guilty of the crime specfically charged to them and if they are charged with more than one crime during the same incident each is seperated out and must be proven by the district attorney beyond a reasonable doubt. For instance, if one is charged with rape and assult while they are being tried for both at the same time each is singled out and proven. A person could be found guilty of one and not another. Reasonalby sure is another way of saying almost positive.

In a civil court the term use to replace beyond a reasonable doubt is in preponderance of the evidence which means 51%.

Preponderance of the evidence
The level of proof required in a civil case; one side's case must simply be considered more provable than the other's. It is the lowest level of proof. See "clear and convincing" and "reasonable doubt."
source

http://www.legal-dictionary.org/legal-dictionary-p/Preponderance-of-the-evidence.asp
To further complicate civil matters is the assignment of guilt. How much of the fault was the planiffs how much the defendant's and how much to other parties not involved. Take the assignment of blame and the lower level of commitment to find for the planiff may be where somepeople run into guilty verdicts in civil court and not guilty in crimminal court.

It might be a bigger arugement (and one that I would concur with) to say that matters that qualitfy as crimminal court cases should not be tried a second time in a civil court but should have all matters handled in that crimminal court be it punitive or financial in content. Many smaller cases that do not make the papers are run in both courts but as a general rule the crimminal case is settled first as it is ammunition for the civil case which might be a bigger arguement for combining the two and teaming civil and crimminal lawyers up in the same courtoom maybe with more than one judge if that is what it takes.

 

[Tiassa]

The standard against double-jeopardy merely protects people from their government. It says little or nothing at all about protecting people from one another.

In the case of the O.J. trial, I find it odd that a court can hold him responsible for an act he's been acquitted of. In the Bryant trial, I really wonder if this accuser is willing to expose herself and all the dirty laundry that has made this case so damned colorful.

O.J. got nailed because his criminal defense merely invoked reasonable doubt. Unemployed and home from dropping out of college, I actually watched the trial on television--feeling I had nothing better to do--and still hold with the acquittal as proper in the eyes of the law.

But Kobe Bryant seems to have a broad defense on his side, such that the preponderance of evidence might be such as to crush the lawsuit entirely; additionally, the rape shield law that Bryant's defense team has worked so hard to overcome, evaporates in a civil court, and if we think her reputation has been threatened by the criminal proceeding, the civil suit should pretty much devastate her character entirely.

Kobe Bryant is rich. He can afford this defense. And, frankly, if the criminal proceeding continues to collapse as it has, I would say Bryant and his lawyers well within their rights to absolutely carve this accuser to bits in the civil trial.

I once had a conversation with a woman I worked with, who liked to go out to parties where pro athletes could be found. She would sit on her cigarette breaks complaining about the meat-handed athletes unable to stop harassing the women. It sounded as if she didn't appreciate the contact, so I asked her straight up why she kept going to these parties that she didn't seem to like being at. The answer? Because. Because you gotta have style. Because you gotta be cool. Because you gotta go out and get what you want in the world. None of it would license rape, but if she ever sued one of those players for harassment, I would seek out the defense and insist on testifying that such harassment is what that woman wanted.

Dignity is one thing, but if Bryant's accuser has abused that dignity, then I hope Kobe looks forward to a civil suit so that he can proceed to wreck her entirely. Who made Kobe the instrument of justice? She very well may have done that herself.

Of course, we also realize the flip-side of these lawsuits: She has had her own attorney arguing her interests, and attorneys need to be paid.

 

[wesmorris]

Rob, thanks for that clarification. I do believe the point still stands though, based on the fact that if they are accused of a crime in the civil case, that matter should be resolved in criminal court. If they are convicted there, then a civil trial based on the results of the criminal trial could actually make sense. If they are not convicted there, there is no basis for a criminal suit. Otherwise, you're being tried for the same 'crime' twice.

tiassa:

It was my impression that the double jeapardy law was in place to ensure that a person didn't stand trial for the same crime twice.

Further, the accusor has filed the case 'anonymously' as "Jane Doe" so I don't know if "slicing her to pieces" as she may or may not deserve is possible depending on the court's decision to allow her to maintain her anonymity.

Again though, my main complaint is that there is no justification to sue someone based on the repurcussions of a crime they commited against you if they have not been convicted of that crime. To me, that is incredibly ridiculous and downright wrong.

 

[Asguard]

can i ask something that has always puzzled me even more
why IS there a law that is called "wrongful death"?

in australia death is criminal by definition, be it delibrate (murder), acidental (manslaughter), in a crash (culperble driving and again manslaughter) or soon (i hope) in a work place (industrial mansluaghter)

there is (as far as i know) no civil laws that even RELATE to death

it seems to me that the ONLY purpose of that law is to get around double jepody, another case that puzzled me was the law suit after 11/9

i was amazed that they would bring suits against private induviduals in other countries and the countries themselves and EXPECT THEM TO PAY

i mean if i had been ordered to pay i would have just given a finger, figretivly, I mean how could they possably enforce there laws in other countries controled by the very people they were charging

they whole US justice system amazes me at times. I mean what chance has anyone got of living a normal life after being found innocent? seriously in the huge TV trials with the media being used as much as the courts what hope does a TRULLY inocent person, who was charged with a crime they really DIDNT commit (say rape or kidnapping, child murder ect) have of ever say getting a job?, or anything else without being harassed

innocent untill we decided to charge you seems to be the way things go in the states

 

[robtex]

Of course, we also realize the flip-side of these lawsuits: She has had her own attorney arguing her interests, and attorneys need to be paid.

Actually, the lawyer may have taken the case without charging the planiff.
Reasons would be:

1) great advertising for his firm or practice

2) hopes that kobe would settle out of court where he could get a percentage

3) theory that they would have strong enough case to win and he get % of payment.

4) possible way to break into a spcialty niche (if he has not done so already) that by tradition can very lucrative in nature.

than again he may have charged her? but there are possiblilties for both

Wes,

Amen for your first paragraph but as the law stands today (as i understand it) double jeapordy applies only to crimminal trials as opposed to a mix of crimminal and civil.


The post civil suit for pro ball players looks like a cash cow for the lawyers and in the crimminal justice system they have a lot of pull on how policies are dictated.

They help campaign for the judges (who are also lawyers and among the anointed) they like. They probably also give money for campaigning.

As a last footnote non-famous people also get tried in both courts too though not high profile so it is not likely to make the papers but as a general rule the outcome of the crimminal case dictates the pace and strategy of the civil case which re-enforces your points Wes.

Civil cases don't go to court until after the crimminal cases.