MisterMo Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Some stuff about OJ Simpson in another thread prodded this curiosity to the top of the list. Ponder the following: OJ was acquitted of killing his wife but in a subsequent civil proceeding was 'guilty' enough of the same crime to have a multi-million dollar judgement against him, correct? So, I realize there were different juries involved, and I further realize that criminal and civil juries are subject to slightly different standards of certainty (or I'm pretty sure anyway) so what happened was 'legal'. But I'm curious what people here think (If anybody cares): Is it just? If you're not guilty in a criminal sense, is it just that you could be found guilty in the civil sense? Quote
Squid Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 If you're innocent you have nothing to worry about... Quote
Mal_Con Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 ivil only requires 51% sure. Criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" = 90%+ big difference. We still consider a loss of freedom to be more than mere $$$. Do not really know how long this will last with objectiest thought becoming the current trend. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.