Mike was found "not guilty" of murder, but also was held "responsible" for murder.?
Mike was found "not guilty" of murder, but also was held "responsible" for murder. How can this be? How is our legal system structured such that it would permit this type of anomaly?
Answers:
This is an issue of there being two distinct types of law in this country.
He was found "not guilty" in a criminal court, where the primary rule is "innocent until proven guilty." In criminal court, it's the job of the prosecutor to show beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. Any modicum less than this, and the person is found "not guilty."
However, we also have civil court, the court where people sue each other. In civil court, there is no concept of "innocent until proven guilty." If the one side argues their case better than the other side, they win. These means that if Mike was sued for damages related to the murder he was found "not guilty" of, the person suing him would merely have to present a pretty good case that he committed murder, but not one that proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The exact same pile of evidence which wasn't strong enough to find him "guilty" in a criminal court may be enough to find him "responsible" in a civil court.
If I drop a nice vase I am responsible for breaking it but I am not guilty of destroying it on purpose.
Same thing with OJ. He was found not guilty of murder in a criminal court. But the Civil court said he was guilty and liable to pay restitutions to the families involved.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: