Robert Blake, the actor, was recently acquitted of murder, yet a civil court has ruled that he is liable for his wife's death to the tune of $30 million. In 1995 O.J. Simpson was also acquitted of murder in the death of his wife but shortly afterward, a civil court held him liable and ordered him to pay millions.
Say what you will about these criminal proceedings - and I'm no lawyer - but it seems to me that to be found liable by one court after having been found innocent by another smacks of double jeopardy. It is the same case with the same evidence, yet somehow a civil court can decide that a criminal court erred. After this has been done, they can then decide that a person's life has a finite value. I suppose they are able to get around the double-jeopardy thing by going to civil court as opposed to a prosecutor retrying the case and taking another stab at it. For some reason, however, the prosecution in both cases chose not to appeal the acquittals. Why is this since there was some evidence that convinced a civil jury that proper justice had not been served?
Without knowing much about the finer points of each case, it would seem that a civil trial is going to play more heavily toward emotion rather than fact. This is the very reason why so many defense attorneys have such a problem with "emotional impact" statements from families of the victims in criminal trials. True justice is not being served because it is not hard evidence that is convincing a jury; it is a sobbing daughter who has lost a mom or an emotional father who has lost a son.
I am not completely without compassion in these cases. If I were to have suffered such a loss, I could not say for absolute certainty that I would not respond according to my fouled up emotions maybe even outside the court room if given a chance. It must be noted, however, that this must be the very reason why the Lord set up such procedures for the Israelites. Safe havens for the accused in order to protect them from emotional family members who would seek vengeance against someone who just might be completely innocent if allowed the chance to prove it. It must surely be the very reason why at least two eyewitnesses must be present, according to Torah.
Our Constitution stipulates that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but the truth is that we would prefer to ignore that rubbish. We know a crime has been committed and we know that someone did it, and we want someone to pay. It really does not matter whether that person who has been arrested and photographed is actually innocent. The fact that enough evidence exists to bring charges against that person is good enough for most of us - ESPECIALLY if we are talking about child molestation cases!
I know that if I am ever accused of a crime, I want them to bring irrefutable evidence that connects me to the crime. I have to live in a society that presumes guilt and even if I am not a criminal (and have no plans to be!), it is a threat to my own well-being that a court can be manipulated minus any hard evidence that I am guilty simply because someone can cry on command.
This does not mean that Robert Blake and OJ Simpson finally got theirs. What it actually means that no one among us is safe even in a United States court of law.
3 comments:
Michael, in our legal system the prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal -- once you're acquitted that's it.
I agree civil "wrongful death" suits pursued after acquittals do smack of double-jeopardy, but how do you convince people to push for legislation barring them?
Yeah, a civil conviction after a criminal acquittal has always struck me as somehow wrong.
This civil conviction can take place because a civil plaintiff has a lower burden of proof than a criminal prosecutor.
But it does seem like double jeopardy. Perhaps legislation that forbade civil suits for an act that a criminal court has rejected would work.
Wow, David! You're right. Pretty basic constitutional protection against double-jeopardy, correct?
John, the whole thing makes me sick not only because of my concept of what double-jeopardy is but also because the idea that someone's life has a definitive monetary value turns my stomach.
It seems that any legislative action to correct this deficiency might require a whole new amendment, yes?
Post a Comment