Thread: A father's Love and Rage

Originally Posted by Bruno

I've heard about this before, with the OJ case.Could someone please explain this to me?How can there be 2 lawsuits for the same thing? If the legal court (or whatever it is called) has decided that the man has done nothing wrong, on what basis could a civil court then decide to convict for that same offense?

Civil courts don't work on the same basis of reasonable doubt that the criminal courts do. For example, you could be tried for Murder 1, but if the prosecution doesn't prove that you fit the definition of Murder 1 beyond reasonable doubt, you would go free. It doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime, you just didn't commit Murder 1 by the definition of the law. This happens all the time here in the US as prosecuters try to over reach instead of going with a slam dunk conviction on lesser charges, i.e. Murder 2, manslaughter or involutary manslaughter. Civil courts, on the other hand, use more of a blanket term such as Wrongful Death to cover the whole range.

Originally Posted by Theseus

Civil courts don't work on the same basis of reasonable doubt that the criminal courts do. For example, you could be tried for Murder 1, but if the prosecution doesn't prove that you fit the definition of Murder 1 beyond reasonable doubt, you would go free. It doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime, you just didn't commit Murder 1 by the definition of the law. This happens all the time here in the US as prosecuters try to over reach instead of going with a slam dunk conviction on lesser charges, i.e. Murder 2, manslaughter or involutary manslaughter. Civil courts, on the other hand, use more of a blanket term such as Wrongful Death to cover the whole range.

Ok, but how can multiple courts hold jurisdiction?
Here in Belgium, there is exactly 1 court for everything. What is the point of having overlapping jurisdictions?

Originally Posted by Bruno

Ok, but how can multiple courts hold jurisdiction?
Here in Belgium, there is exactly 1 court for everything. What is the point of having overlapping jurisdictions?

In criminal court, the state is the plaintiff, and the accused is tried for breaking the law. A jury must be convinced of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt".
In civil court, one party sues the other for damages. A jury decides whether to award damages based on "the preponderance of evidence".

There are other differences, but that's what I remember off the top of my head.