Originally Posted by Spectic Tank
I know what double jeopardy is.
Answer my question! Throw out the reason because he is force to. Why do you think OJ should pay her family anything for "wrongful death?"
I know what double jeopardy is.
Answer my question! Throw out the reason because he is force to. Why do you think OJ should pay her family anything for "wrongful death?"
Did you read post 179? if not here it is again:
I know what double jeopardy is.
Answer my question! Throw out the reason because he is force to. Why do you think OJ should pay her family anything for "wrongful death?"
And just to clear up the double jeopardy argument:Huh?
He was acquited on criminal charges and CONVICTED on civil charges.
NO CHARGES WERE DROPPED
He has to pay because he was found guilty in a civil court. Does that clear it up for you?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardyDouble jeopardy also does not attach if the later charge is civil rather than criminal in nature, which involves a different legal standard. Acquittal in a criminal case does not prevent the defendant from being the defendant in a civil suit relating to the same incident (though res judicata operates within the civil court system). For example, O.J. Simpson was acquitted of a double homicide in a California criminal prosecution, but lost a civil wrongful death claim brought over the same victims.
Because he was found quilty for her death, and should be held responsible. You can't serve jail time for a civil charge, so that was the only way they could punish him.
but he was found guilty on federal charges
ohhhh okay, you made my point.
You can argue that one case is federal while the other is civil, but it's still an official form a double jeopardy. That's also proves how vengeful our society is. They were stuck on the fact that they "thought" OJ was the killer, they took him to court again on the same charges that he just beat, worded the charges differently, and tried to cash in on him. GAYDouble jeopardy is a procedural defense (and, in many countries such as the United States, Canada, Mexico, Japan and India, a constitutional right) which forbids that a defendant be tried twice for the same crime. At common law a defendant may plead autrefois acquit or autrefois convict (a peremptory plea); meaning the defendant has already been acquitted or convicted of the same offense. If this issue is raised, evidence will be placed before the court, which will normally rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated, and if it so finds, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding.
Dude he was aquited on criminal charges( A.K.A. NOT GUILTY) and then found guilty in civil court. The family didn't 'think' he was guilty, he was found guilty by a jury.but he was found guilty on federal charges
ohhhh okay, you made my point.
You can argue that one case is federal while the other is civil, but it's still an official form a double jeopardy. That's also proves how vengeful our society is. They were stuck on the fact that they "thought" OJ was the killer, they took him to court again on the same charges that he just beat, worded the charges differently, and tried to cash in on him. GAY
I saw your excellent copy and paste from wikipedia. But, did you read past that paragraph to the section title EXCEPTIONS?
If you do you will clearly see what I quoted in my above statemant which proves exactly why this is not double jeopardy.
This thread is not about OJ...If you can't understand our justice system then you can start a new thread about it.
And you didn't answer my question
How in the hell does that not answer your question? you asked me why he should have to pay right? Because he was guilty and deserves some form of punishment. Since jail sentences can't be handed out in civil cases the only way to punish him is financially.And you didn't answer my question
are you sure u did?
I asked for your personal opinion, but you keep giving me this "because he was found guilty" reason. Also, if it's "double jeopardy" or not, suing someone because you think they are liable for a death that was already proven otherwise is stupid.
I know what double jeopardy is.
Answer my question! Throw out the reason because he is force to. Why do you think OJ should pay her family anything for "wrongful death?"
Am I sure I what?are you sure u did?
I asked for your personal opinion, but you keep giving me this "because he was found guilty" reason. Also, if it's "double jeopardy" or not, suing someone because you think they are liable for a death that was already proven otherwise is stupid.
well once you read past "because he was found guilty", you will see the rest of the sentence that explains my personal opinion:
He needs to punished for his crime.he deserves some form of punishment. Since jail sentences can't be handed out in civil cases the only way to punish him is financially.
They thought he was liable and so did the rest of the jury in the civil case. That's how our judicial system works man. Sorry if you don't agree with it, but Canada's not too far away...
Not my fight, but you're not understanding something.
I asked for your personal opinion, but you keep giving me this "because he was found guilty" reason. Also, if it's "double jeopardy" or not, suing someone because you think they are liable for a death that was already proven otherwise is stupid.
The burden of PROOF is totally different between criminal and civil. In a criminal case, where your FREEDOM/LIFE is at stake, the burden of proof is much much higher than civil where only your wallet can get hurt. Personally, I'm glad that's how it is. You should need a ton MORE PROOF to put me in jail than to give me a fine. Don't you agree? Well, that's what happened to O.J. He had a hellva defense team, the prosecution screwed the pooch on their side of the table, and voila!!! O.J. walked. Not because he DIDN'T do it necessarily, but because the state failed to convince 12 people he did it beyond any doubt. Putting on a glove or a cap like they have the Ebola virus on them convinced SOME that he didn't do it. Good. But when he was tried in a CIVIL courtroom by the PARENTS, not the state, the jurors didn't have to be 100% sure, only 51% sure he was responsible. They did. That's why he lost, and that's why it's not double jeopardy.
^^I obviously wasn't getting the point across. Hopefully that will.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote