Here's an idea: Anyone acquitted of a killing in true Self Defense should be immune from further prosecution civilly! If you've already been proven innocent, you're innocent! Why put someone through that legal wringer a second time, usually just out of vindictiveness or for mercenary reasons? That's not fair, and it should go away.
Double Jeopardy?
- Thread starter REParker
- Start date
14daMoney
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2014
- Messages
- 1,106
- Reaction score
- 2,799
- City & State/Province
- approx. 2.5 miles NW of Hill Cumorah
WHAT! and put thousands of attorneys out on the bread line.....
There is a different standard of proof between criminal cases and civil liability cases.
Criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Civil is preponderance of the evidence, 51%.
Huge difference.
You can be found Not Guilty for a lot of reasons and not always is it because you are not guilty.
Based off your analogy I cream your car and beat the charge for reckless driving then I shouldn't be liable for fixing your car or paying medical bills.
Criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Civil is preponderance of the evidence, 51%.
Huge difference.
You can be found Not Guilty for a lot of reasons and not always is it because you are not guilty.
Based off your analogy I cream your car and beat the charge for reckless driving then I shouldn't be liable for fixing your car or paying medical bills.
Bad analogy. If you cream my car it's an accident (presumably)...not a deliberate act done for cause. If I shoot someone in self defense, I assure you it won't be an accident, and it would have been precipitated by a conscious act.
One name. O.J. Simpson.
Bad analogy of the analogy.
My point was a finding of guilt or innocence in a criminal matter doesn't equal the same finding in a civil matter. And, where I live, reckless driving is criminal.
As stated the level of proof isn't equal between the two.
If it makes it more understandable two people engage in a disagreement and guy 1 punches guy 2 and breaks his glasses.
Guy 1 is charged but testifies to what Guy 2 said to him to get him to punch him. The jury decides to find guy 1 not guilty.
Guy 2 sues to get his glasses fixed.
The burden of proof is less in the civil trial.
There now no accident is involved.
steelslaver
US Veteran
Civil law and criminal law are 2 different things so no double jeopardy. In a shooting you may be cleared of murder and even manslaughter or assault but be sued for negligence.
Plus, for what you want to all 50 states would have to pass laws to that effect and you bet your biffy that the ink wouldn't be dry before lawyers in every state would be taking it to court. I believe some states already have such laws, but a good lawyer can always try a end around. Instead of suing you for the killing sue you for causing loss of affection or loss of family income
But then the basic concept of double jeopardy has work around more than one person has been cleared at the state level and then been convicted of a federal crime for the same act. Ask the cops who arrested Rodney King. # of them were acquitted of all charges at trail in LA then the Feds indited them and convicted 2 of them and sent them to prison. This is not the only case by any means
Plus, for what you want to all 50 states would have to pass laws to that effect and you bet your biffy that the ink wouldn't be dry before lawyers in every state would be taking it to court. I believe some states already have such laws, but a good lawyer can always try a end around. Instead of suing you for the killing sue you for causing loss of affection or loss of family income
But then the basic concept of double jeopardy has work around more than one person has been cleared at the state level and then been convicted of a federal crime for the same act. Ask the cops who arrested Rodney King. # of them were acquitted of all charges at trail in LA then the Feds indited them and convicted 2 of them and sent them to prison. This is not the only case by any means
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 9,336
- Reaction score
- 21,320
- City & State/Province
- NM - Land of Enchantment
Double jeopardy applies only to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Fifth Amendment, Bill of Rights, US Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Fifth Amendment, Bill of Rights, US Constitution
FWIW Kentucky state law states:
“A person who uses force as permitted in [relevant state statutes] is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force…”
“A person who uses force as permitted in [relevant state statutes] is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force…”
As SteelSlaver says,
“A good lawyer can always try an end around.”
I really cannot think of anything that would be immune from this.
Furthermore, we have a saying that “the process is the punishment.”
So even if acquitted the penalty in $$ is significant.
“A good lawyer can always try an end around.”
I really cannot think of anything that would be immune from this.
Furthermore, we have a saying that “the process is the punishment.”
So even if acquitted the penalty in $$ is significant.
This is law in some states. If a homicide is found to be justified the defendant is protected from civil litigation.
But if you were thought to be justified you wouldn't be having a criminal trial, more than likely.
The scenario was being found not guilty or "acquitted" so I took that to mean having a criminal trial after being charged.
Beyond a reasonable doubt
Preponderance
Look those two up. If that doesn't explain it, then accept that's the way it is and put on the list with the rest of the stuff you can't do anything about. Then move on to what you can control, IE avoiding situations that result in shooting someone in self defense.
Preponderance
Look those two up. If that doesn't explain it, then accept that's the way it is and put on the list with the rest of the stuff you can't do anything about. Then move on to what you can control, IE avoiding situations that result in shooting someone in self defense.
being found NOT GUILTY does not equate to being found INNOCENT... this distinction is the reason for civil liability..
Gotta love Kentucky!
ispcapt
US Veteran
It does not prevent you from being sued. You can still be sued. What that law means is that would be your defense in the civil case. In the civil case you would have to show that the homicide is justified. The complainant would say the homicide was not justified which is why they are suing.
People who have no knowledge of the law do not understand that.
A criminal trial does not determine if you're innocent. A trial is either guilty, not guilty, or a hung jury. Innocent is not at issue and there is no innocent finding.
Also, a not guilty finding in a criminal case does not mean a crime was not committed. It only means the state did not convince 100% of the jury of the guilt. The preponderance of guilt is 100% in a criminal case. 1 person on the jury not voting for guilty is a hung jury. A retrial may or may not happen. Even a not guilty finding is not the same as being innocent.
Last edited:
Absolutely- in ALL criminal cases. You’re either innocent OR you’re guilty. Makes NO sense to be “innocent” yet “guilty” civilly. Stupid.
SGT ROCK 11B
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2023
- Messages
- 3,636
- Reaction score
- 5,466
- City & State/Province
- American Legion Post 1
O.J. Simpson is the perfect example.
A lot of people get away with committing crimes.
Actually a jury finds you either "Guiilty" or "Not Guilty".
Innocence is more of a moral concept and isn't used in court criminal trials.
fatcat3
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2016
- Messages
- 881
- Reaction score
- 2,240
THIS
I always wondered about that with him, how could he be innocent on one hand and guilty on the other, either he did it or not. Sure sounds simple to me.
It's complicated but the long, short answer is time and place. I believe the evidence proved his guilt in the criminal trial, but jury nullification is real, and happened. I don't know for sure if it was completely racially motivated or not, but it used to happen in the past, only the other way around. So, I understand where it came from, but I am personally sickened that 12 people decided they weren't going to hold him accountable for his acts. Which were horrible, by the way.
So, when the civil case came around, the same evidence proved his guilt once again, but this time the jury held him accountable. Civil court is different than criminal court and the possible penalties reflect that. Had he lost the criminal trial, he wouldn't have been on the hook for anything, monetarily. In the civil trial he couldn't be sent to prison.
In the first trial he was found innocent by the jury, he wasn't proven innocent. Important distinction.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 9,336
- Reaction score
- 21,320
- City & State/Province
- NM - Land of Enchantment
Blackstone's Ratio - it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer wrongful punishment.
A lot of folks I worked with let watching guilty sometimes walk despite their best efforts turn them sour. In policing, you do your best and hand the case off - your job is done.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 9,336
- Reaction score
- 21,320
- City & State/Province
- NM - Land of Enchantment
Unless it fails the 'same evidence' test.
True, still, substitute guilty for innocent and the same rules apply. You are either guilty…or you are not.
PaulM&P
Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2012
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 62
Not only that, but if you do get prosecuted and are acquitted the state should be obligated to cover ALL of your legal expenses including punitive damages if you are held in custody.
Similar threads
