Not Gulity/Aquitted vs. Civil Court?
I'm looking for serious answers please!
How is it that someone can be aquitted for found not guilty, but then be found guilty in civil court and have to pay a substantal amount of money to a family for something that the court of law said you weren't guilty of. I'm so serious when I ask this question and would like to know the reasoning or how this is reasoned in the law of our land. This just doesn't make sense to me. This is being made more public lately from cases like OJ Simpson and Robert Blake. I don't care about your comment on whether they did it or not, but want to know how they are liable in Civil court. Thanks in advance!
Being sent to prison and having a permanent record as a felon is an extremely detrimental thing. We want to be as sure as possible that someone actually comitted a crime before putting them through that. The result of a civil trial is that the person merely has to pay some money, which is bad certainly, but it's much more acceptable for there to be people wrongly convicted in civil trials, so we have a lower standard of proof in civil cases.
It has to do with the amount of evidence needed. In criminal court the evidence has to convice 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in civil court it is only 'a perponderance of the evidence.' Which means...(how much is a reasonable doubt...no one really knows) in criminal court about 75% or more has to lean their way, in civil court only 50.1%
Answers:
There's a different level of proof required in civil and criminal courts. In a criminal trial, guilt has to be established 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. In a civil case, liability has to be established by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.. In layman terms, 99 44/100% to be guilty criminally, 50.1% to be liable civilly.
IN order to be found guilty and held criminaly liable the jurorers need to know that you are guilty only within a reasonalble doubt. Criminal court is made to protect the accused. This is so people can not be wrongfully convicted and placed in jail. Civil court has a more liberal aproach because it does not involve jail time. A person can be convicted if it appears likely they comitted the crime. This to give the victom another way to attempt to get justice when there is not enough evidence to prove 100% but it is still clear that they are the criminal. It was made this way more for cases of fraud and theft, than how it is currently being used.
I fully agree with the above two answers about the burden of proof being far less stringent in Civil Court. It is also a fact that a great many more details are allowed in evidence in the Civil action. Evidence that under no circumstances would be allowed 'in' by a Trial Judge at the Criminal Court will almost certainly be allowed in the Civil Court. Certain hearsay evidence is allowed together with previous convictions etc. Forensic evidence that was disallowed for whatever reason in the Criminal Trial will again be almost certainly allowed in in the Civil matter.
