Criminal v.s Civil Law
The O.J Simpson case, known as the "trial of the century", gaining nationwide attention with more 100 million people tuning in on live television to hear the verdict. After taking 8 months to decide Simpson's face after the brutal murder of Nicole 'brown and Robert Goldman and receiving a not-guilty verdict, not at all was over with for Mr Simpson, he now awaited with the Civil trial.
The important thing to note is the difference between what a civil and criminal trial are and how their procedures and outcomes differ. The first step to understanding this is noting that a criminal prosecution involves different laws, a different court system, and different burdens of proof than in a civil one. During the O.J trial, he was charged with first-degree murder meaning that he had to have malice aforethought and premeditation. And in order to convict in the criminal court, the case against the defendant must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a civil case for wrongful death, which is what O.J got in the Civil Trial, the plaintiffs only had to prove that the defendant’s intentional and unlawful conduct resulted in the victims’ deaths. The burden of proof in the civil case was the amount of evidence -- a much lesser burden than is required in a criminal case.
In conclusion, a jury in a criminal trial might reasonably fail to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquit the accused, a civil jury might also reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant was unlawful and has civil liability.
Sources:
https://connorreporting.com/5-famous-court-cases-u-s-history/
https://www.chamberslawfirmca.com/o-j-simpson-the-new-knife-and-criminal-vs-civil-trials/
 |
| O.J during the criminal trial |
 |
| No video allowed in the civil trial so this was an artist sketch of O.J |
In conclusion, a jury in a criminal trial might reasonably fail to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquit the accused, a civil jury might also reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant was unlawful and has civil liability.
Sources:
https://connorreporting.com/5-famous-court-cases-u-s-history/
https://www.chamberslawfirmca.com/o-j-simpson-the-new-knife-and-criminal-vs-civil-trials/
The difference between criminal and civil trials is fascinating, and I think it also shows how the knowledge of what an individual's sentence could be may have the potential to actually play a role in the willingness of a jury to convict an accused person. It is important that one not be convicted of a crime if the jury finds that there is reasonable doubt, as the opposite would make it easier for more innocent people to be convicted of crimes they did not commit. However, I still find it unsettling to think that someone like OJ could be found responsible for two brutal murders but not actually serve any time for these acts because he was found responsible in the civil trial, not the criminal trial. While this kind of verdict could mean that the the jury just did not believe the evidence proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal trial, he was ultimately found responsible for the same crime by a different jury but faced fines instead of prison. I feel that this concept brings up the question of what justice truly means in these kinds of cases. Is it really justice for someone to face a less harsh punishment because a jury is less sure that person committed the crime? Does the connection between the punishment of an accused individual and the certainty of the jury about that person's guilt (the idea that someone could be found innocent of a crime and avoid prison but then still be found responsible and have to pay) really promote justice, or does it illustrate an attempt to conceal shortcomings of the American justice system due to people's innate desire to "catch the bad guy" and make someone pay for a crime even if they are just unable to know all of the answers?
ReplyDeleteI think the civil system is a very important part of our justice system because it deals with cases where the defendant may not be a threat to society physically but their actions still need to be punished because they broke the law in some way. However, I do not think that a case like OJ's where he was tried for wrongful death should be tried in civil court because it is much more serious and he should be punished with prison time. I think that violent crimes like this should be retried in the criminal court if more evidence is found like the photos of him in the shoes in order to ensure proper punishment.
ReplyDelete