Reset Password
If you've forgotten your password, you can enter your email address below. An email will then be sent with a link to set up a new password.
Cancel
Reset Link Sent
If the email is registered with our site, you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password. Password reset link sent to:
Check your email and enter the confirmation code:
Don't see the email?
  • Resend Confirmation Link
  • Start Over
Close
If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service
Forgot password?
Blogs > tickles4us > tickles

Do you think civil lawsuits should be allowed...  

tickles4us 62M
1600 posts
12/4/2016 2:57 pm

Last Read:
12/8/2016 2:30 pm
Do you think civil lawsuits should be allowed...

against an individual that has been acquitted or declared innocent in a court trial?

I'm thinking in cases like Robert Blakes or OJ's murder trials.

Is it right to allow civil court persecution of someone even if you are sure they did the crime but they were acquitted do to lack of convincing evidence?

Civil court doesn't have the same requirements for proof beyond a reasonable doubt and such but yet we are talking about cases that can have decisions with devastating effects on the individuals life.
Vive La Difference
sweet_VM 65F
81699 posts
12/8/2016 8:31 am

 I have concerns about this. if you're not guilty......you're not guilty. hugs V
Become a blog watcher sweet_vm


tickles4us replies on 12/8/2016 12:44 pm:
Not always but it seems as if it is wrong to do what I would call persecute someone after they have been acquitted or found innocent or should I say not guilty.

kzoopair 73M/71F
25831 posts
12/4/2016 6:49 pm
    Quoting wickedeasy:
    i have concerns about this. if you're not guilty......you're not guilty.

    how can someone else then sue you for something and win if you are not guilty?

    i understand the difference between types of litigation but it also stinks of double jeopardy in a way to me that leaves innocent people open to devastation in a civil court that can take forever and drain their funds.

    not that i think OJ was innocent but the jury did so.....shrugs.
It does stink of double jeopardy, doesn't it? I don't consider myself qualified to debate this. I just don't have enough knowledge of the law. A jury is instructed to only consider the law, dispassionately and impartially. How many of us can do that, and how many of us want to? If you give up your passion and your partiality...what exactly do you have left?
Become a member now and get a free tote bag.


tickles4us replies on 12/8/2016 2:29 pm:
"Just the facts."

lindoboy100 61M
23969 posts
12/4/2016 5:25 pm
    Quoting wickedeasy:
    there are appeals on litigation and requests for retrial that could address this without allowing for a civil suit to undermine a prior conviction.

    i get your point Lindo. i hate to see an injustice like OJ go unpunished but in the end the man was a moron and ended up in jail anyway.

    and civil suits are often just vindictive and have little to do with justice.
Aye McWickster, there are legal mechanisms which might allow criminal prosecution to be pursued, but sometimes that can fail for a variety of reasons.

There's a famous case over here where a young black man called Steven Lawrence was murdered. Four local neds, sons of local gangsters were arrested, the evidence against them was compelling, but the police 'made mistakes' (were bribed) and so the criminal prosecution had to be dropped. It is one of the race crimes that defines most poeples' disgust of such things nowadays, over here anyways. So aye, the Lawrence boys parents had to pursue the four in civil law and it ruined them, both financially and emotionally, and still the murderers walked free because the police made such a hash of their case. A very sad story which left many over here, particularly black people, very distrusting of the law and of the police.

To me, this is a prime example of a situation where when the criminal route is exhausted, the civil option should remain available.

But yes, I agree entirely, there are many cases where the law has spoken and the civil courts should not be used for all the wrong reasons.

More shades of grey than anything else I guess...........


BrownEyedBBW 55F  
8831 posts
12/4/2016 4:54 pm

 Is it right to allow civil court persecution of someone even if you are sure they did the crime but they were acquitted do to lack of convincing evidence?

Yes.

First, unless we stand there and see it, you never know for sure if someone is guilty or not, hence the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold. We're talking about depriving someone of their very citizenship so the bar needs to be high.

Civil suits serve a different purpose and have a lower threshold. or example, there is a car accident. two people were in the front seat, but in the accident the car rolled over and it's not completely clear which one was driving. If they can't conclusively prove who was driving the car the prosecution might not be able to meet the the threshold for conviction of a crime.

However, if somebody is injured in the other car and they wish to sue they certainly might be in a better position to be financially reimbursed for hardships incurred as a result of an accident that was not their fault. They don't have to prove if Jon or Mary were driving beyond a reasonable doubt. Just that a preponderance of the evidence indicates that one of them was driving.

I think it's important that people have legal recourse to be made whole in the wake of somebody else's bad behavior or irresponsibility.


tickles4us replies on 12/8/2016 2:17 pm:
There are many cases where it is a good thing to have the civil option as in reimbursement or to be made right as it were when the issue isn't so much the crime as the action and consequences.

hotfun_1966 57M
3677 posts
12/4/2016 4:19 pm

 Unless that question is decided by the same jury in the same trial, absolutely not.

The ignorance of the double jeopardy prohibition (and legal sleight-of-hand to try to evade it) is alarming.

The way it is done now, the losing party is out for revenge, and that's not what the framers intended at all.


tickles4us replies on 12/8/2016 2:12 pm:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/double+jeopardy

There is very good reason for the double jeopardy prohibition but there are ways around it and sometimes it does get abused but other times it convicts the guilty that would have walked.

redrockrascal 65M
23580 posts
12/4/2016 3:38 pm

 Civil courts adjudicate different issues than the criminal court does, the burden of proof is generally less and the consequences are different. We also have the double jeopardy issue. IMO a civil trial over the same issue is a dodge around that.

In situations where the legal system (police, DA, etc) was in error I believe those people should be held criminally responsible for what they did, or didn't, do. The case I think of re this kind of thing is the Duke Lacrosse case.

Perhaps the right to raise a civil action should be decided at the criminal trial, but that would require law changes.

Our system is full of holes IMO, and the discussion is very long and complicated. More than a forum like this can adequately cover.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.


tickles4us replies on 12/8/2016 1:14 pm:
I agree that any and all police, prosecutors or lab tech's etc. that knowingly present false evidence should be held fully responsible and in my opinion should face the same time behind bars that the person they were bearing false witness against was facing if not more as in a minimum of five years.

wickedeasy 74F
32404 posts
12/4/2016 3:28 pm
    Quoting lindoboy100:
    Good question McTickle.

    There are situations I'm aware of where obviously guilty people are acquitted because of police corruption, or perhaps a legal mistake or technicality, yet everyone knows they are guilty.

    And there are others where there is insufficient evidence yet people may pursue things in the civil courts out of a sense of injustice or revenge, or perhaps completion.

    I don't think the right to raise a civil action should be curtailed, perhaps each case should be judged on its own merits?
there are appeals on litigation and requests for retrial that could address this without allowing for a civil suit to undermine a prior conviction.

i get your point Lindo. i hate to see an injustice like OJ go unpunished but in the end the man was a moron and ended up in jail anyway.

and civil suits are often just vindictive and have little to do with justice.
You cannot conceive the many without the one.


wickedeasy 74F
32404 posts
12/4/2016 3:24 pm

 i have concerns about this. if you're not guilty......you're not guilty.

how can someone else then sue you for something and win if you are not guilty?

i understand the difference between types of litigation but it also stinks of double jeopardy in a way to me that leaves innocent people open to devastation in a civil court that can take forever and drain their funds.

not that i think OJ was innocent but the jury did so.....shrugs.
You cannot conceive the many without the one.


tickles4us replies on 12/8/2016 1:03 pm:
That's pretty much the way I see it. Sometimes people get away with things but sometimes innocent people are made to pay for others crimes and I think it is better to never convict an innocent even if it means someone gets away with the crime.

lindoboy100 61M
23969 posts
12/4/2016 3:12 pm

 Good question McTickle.

There are situations I'm aware of where obviously guilty people are acquitted because of police corruption, or perhaps a legal mistake or technicality, yet everyone knows they are guilty.

And there are others where there is insufficient evidence yet people may pursue things in the civil courts out of a sense of injustice or revenge, or perhaps completion.

I don't think the right to raise a civil action should be curtailed, perhaps each case should be judged on its own merits?


tickles4us replies on 12/8/2016 12:58 pm:
I understand your position. I can certainly see the need for civil cases when it comes to corporations but I do have a problem at least sometimes when it comes to civil cases against an individual for certain crimes or about certain crimes that they were found not guilty of. But it is damn difficult to watch someone that you feel is guilty walk free. On the other hand if there wasn't enough evidence to convict them beyond a reasonable doubt and that person just may be innocent why should they be then subjected to a persecution by a lower level court that has the power to strip them of their savings and properties and even future earnings. What if later on after the person has lost his case in civil court it comes to light that the person was actually innocent and the original crime was in fact committed by someone else? This person now has nothing and can never get back what they had, not to mention their reputation. No simple answers in life...

mufdiver69er2 63M  
1953 posts
12/4/2016 3:07 pm

 that's civil court prosecution...or maybe it is persecution..
woop woop


tickles4us replies on 12/8/2016 12:45 pm:
Sometimes it seems more like persecution.

tickles4us 62M
7262 posts
12/4/2016 2:58 pm
Vive La Difference


Become a member to create a blog