Fukkin Explain something to me, cause I'm a moron...

[nlphoto]

This example is involving Robert Blake, but the question is more of a general one...


You're arrested... tried and aquitted of a crime... which means the legal system
says you did not commit that crime, because the state did not prove their case
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now the founding fathers of this country did not come up with the terms
"beyond a reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of the evidence" on a
fuckin lark... you're supposed to be SURE the defendant is guilty, not just
"kinda think" they are.

But no, now all you need to do is have enough money to hire a lawyer who
is better at telling their side of the story, (or more usually, better at
using the system to prevent the other side from being presented).

How does this not qualify as double jeopardy? Do criminal court decisions mean
nothing now in our justice system?

[TheEnforcer]

Criminal and civil cases are two entirely different types of legal proceedings. The burden of proof is diferent because the actions are brought by two different types of plaintiffs. In a criminal the state or feds, collectively known as "the people" are the plaintiffs and the action is brought about in the name of everyone in the state or country and your freedom and other rights can be stripped form you, thus the higher burden of proof. A civil case is brought about because of a dispute between two parties (yes there can be class action and such but I'm talking the basics) and the remedies are only financial so the burden of proof is lower.

The thinking goes that to have your freedoms taken away there must be a much higher burden of proof to qualify for conviction wherreas a dispute between two parties, which doesn't involve the loss of freedoms, doesn't require such a high standard of proof to find judgement for the plaintiff.


.

[nlphoto]

i understand that, but the result is the same... you're being tried twice for
the same accusation... how can Robert Blake be guilty of "wrongful death"
if it has not been legally proven that he caused that death ?

[JR]

Originally Posted by nlphoto

This example is involving Robert Blake, but the question is more of a general one...


You're arrested... tried and aquitted of a crime... which means the legal system
says you did not commit that crime, because the state did not prove their case
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now the founding fathers of this country did not come up with the terms
"beyond a reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of the evidence" on a
fuckin lark... you're supposed to be SURE the defendant is guilty, not just
"kinda think" they are.

i think you are looking at it backwards. the idea of proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt is to protect the innocent. not the guilty. its not about a person being "kinda guilty" it's about making sure he is not possibly innocent.

the system is weighted towards protecting the innocent... and too much so in my opinion. in addition to that, 12 jurors must be unanimous in their agreement that the case was proven and that the defendent is guilty.

[JR]

Originally Posted by nlphoto

i understand that, but the result is the same... you're being tried twice for
the same accusation... how can Robert Blake be guilty of "wrongful death"
if it has not been legally proven that he caused that death ?

its a civil procedure.. not a criminal one. different burdens of proof. being aquitted in a murder trial --... i.e. that it was not proven that he committed 1st degree murder... does not mean that he did not kill her or cause her to be killed. it means they were not able to convict him of 1st degree murder... they possibly could have for 2nd degree murder, 3rd, manslaughter etc. that is the prosecutors call, he made the charge and tried the case and lost.

[Red]

The same thing happened to OJ. Nicole's family won the civil suit against him.

[selena]

Originally Posted by Red

The same thing happened to OJ. Nicole's family won the civil suit against him.

Yes, and OJ is bemoaning that fact in this link

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...=ENTERTAINMENT

Tomorrow Jesse Jackson will be bemoaning it on his behalf.

[Newton]

I believe they are trying to quoosh the 'double jeopardy' rule?? Can't remember where I saw that..

Where's voodooman .. Chap, (off the record of course ) in your eyes what constitutes reasonable force to defend ones home or property from perps? You get points for the right answer

[Jeremy]

Originally Posted by Newton

I believe they are trying to quoosh the 'double jeopardy' rule?? Can't remember where I saw that..

In the UK mate. It was one of Herr OberGruppenFuhrer Blunkett's last actions as Home Secretary.

They're going to test it shortly with a case where there's new evidence since acquittal (it can only be done if there's *new* evidence, they can't just be re-tried with the same evidence).

[Newton]

Ah blinder thanks Jeremy, points to you chap ..

[Jeremy]

Ta Newton :-))

Here's the case:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/4426038.stm

[Dravyk]

The death of the double jeopardy rule in the UK ...

Hmm, what was it I was posting here just a few days ago (partly serious but mostly joking) about England and a history of screwing with rights? Apparently it should have been mostly serious and slighty joking. Really does remind me while the Colonies couldn't stand to remain that way. I'm appalled!

"So, you made it through the first time. Well, guess what, mate? We get to have another go at killing ya!!"

[Newton]

Dravyk, they really don't have any room left in the jails for the criminals, what little 'breathing space' they had is just about used up, and a completely fucked up situation. Especially when they jail pensioners, for not paying their council tax, when the pensioners have spent all their money on heating to stop them from getting hypothermia.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Newton

I believe they are trying to quoosh the 'double jeopardy' rule?? Can't remember where I saw that..

Where's voodooman .. Chap, (off the record of course ) in your eyes what constitutes reasonable force to defend ones home or property from perps? You get points for the right answer

Yeah, with it gone now in the UK, the US could well follow...

[PornoDoggy]

A criminal trial literally finds you guilty of a crime, and such conviction required proof beyond a reasonable doubt. {For the sake of neatness, we will ignore the fact that the race or socioeconomic status of the defendant often constitutes some of the reason there can be no reasonable doubt}

A civil trial doesn’t convict you of anything. In a civil trial you are found based on the preponderance of the evidence to have done X, which has caused harm to Y, and the court can award you damages in the amount of Z.

Double Jeopardy (or a standard like it) applies to both civil and criminal matters, but each within their own system. If Dravyk sues pushpills in PA for emotional distress caused by the mention of his testicles in his signature and loses, he cannot re-file the suit in IL or in Federal Court. He can appeal the judgment to a higher court, but only for errors of law.

You can, in fact, be tried more than once for the same ACTION so long as that action has been found to constitute more than one criminal offense. For example, there have been a number of Federal convictions for civil rights violations where the accused had previously been acquitted of murder by juries. Federal RICO convictions have also been obtained against individuals who have been acquitted by state juries for the same actions.

It is conceivable that an individual could be acquitted of the Federal crime of carjacking and still be prosecuted at the state level for assault or murder or auto theft. I expect that one to happen someday, probably in a state like Connecticut without a death penalty.

[Red]

Very informative PD.

You've got points.

[PornoDoggy]

When I was a teenager I wanted to grow up to be William Kunstler.

[Red]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

When I was a teenager I wanted to grow up to be William Kunstler.

I had Abbie Hoffman's picture in my locker senior year.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

When I was a teenager I wanted to grow up to be William Kunstler.

You wanted to grow up to be a Kunstler?

Well you got nearly half the way there...

;-)))

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by Nickatilynx

You wanted to grow up to be a Kunstler?

Well you got nearly half the way there...

;-)))

Walked into that one ...

[Jeremy]

Originally Posted by Dravyk

The death of the double jeopardy rule in the UK ...

Hmm, what was it I was posting here just a few days ago (partly serious but mostly joking) about England and a history of screwing with rights? Apparently it should have been mostly serious and slighty joking. Really does remind me while the Colonies couldn't stand to remain that way. I'm appalled!

"So, you made it through the first time. Well, guess what, mate? We get to have another go at killing ya!!"

LOL Drav..... tell you what, I'll see your rights-trampling Double Jeopardy in the UK and raise you a Patriot Act in the US.

I don't think anyone is perfect on that score.


On an amusing sidenote, a geezer here is challenging Parking Fines with the 1689 Bill of Rights.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...cs/4450196.stm

[Dravyk]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

LOL Drav..... tell you what, I'll see your rights-trampling Double Jeopardy in the UK and raise you a Patriot Act in the US.

I don't think anyone is perfect on that score.

Grrrr .... Bastard!

I gotta admit, you've got me there, Jeremy! Well done!

[Red]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

LOL Drav..... tell you what, I'll see your rights-trampling Double Jeopardy in the UK and raise you a Patriot Act in the US.

I don't think anyone is perfect on that score.

Touche'

Originally Posted by Jeremy

On an amusing sidenote, a geezer here is challenging Parking Fines with the 1689 Bill of Rights.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...cs/4450196.stm

He needs the ACLU.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by Red

I had Abbie Hoffman's picture in my locker senior year.

Pigasus in 2008!!!