Civil court abuse

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fletchette

Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
1,398
Location
WY
When did we start suing over criminal offenses? I would make the case that even though it only involves monetary punative measures, charging someone in civil court for a criminal action of which they have been found "not guilty" is double jeopardy.

Example: a citizen is found "not guilty" of murder, but then he is somehow guilty for "wrongful death" and has to pay millions. WTH?
 
OK, here we go:

Court cases are brought by plaintiffs who claim that they've been damaged by the defendant's actions (or inactions, or what-have-you). "Crimes" are a special case of court actions in which society (through our agent, the government) has decided are sufficiently detrimental to the functioning of said society as to require prosecution on behalf of society. In other forms of government, crimes would be considered damages against the King (a classic is hunting "the King's deer").

Now, with pretty much any criminal case (where "society" is victimized), you can generally also find specific, individual victims. These victims can also bring suit for their damages; that takes the form of a civil suit. In your example, the crime--the damage to society/King--is murder. The equivalent private claim is wrongful death: my spouse/parents/children/etc. should not have died, and would not have, save for your conduct. As such, society can bring a claim, in the form of murder charges, and I can bring my own claim as a civil suit. This is not double jeopardy--it's two different legal claims, just as a state murder charge and federal "killing a Fed" charge are separate claims (ask McVeigh how that one worked). Further, civil cases are not necessarily limited by the double jeopardy clause. Civil verdicts can be appealed by either side (under most circumstances); a prosecutor can't appeal an acquittal.

Make sense so far? Now for the fun part. Civil and criminal cases have different standards of evidence. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's actually a fairly high burden (as it properly should be). In a civil case, the burden is considerably lower: the plaintiff must prove his case "by a preponderance of the evidence." That means that his case has to be proven to be more likely than not, or at least 51% likely. This is how we can get split verdicts: if the evidence available meets the preponderance test (51% likely), but doesn't rise to the much higher "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, the accused can be found liable without being convicted.

It's actually not that bad of a system, once you understand it.
 
You need to understand the law

In a criminal case the defendant is being tried by "society" as a whole.
In a civil case the defendant (if found guilty) "pays" the wronged parties.
Double Jep would be if found not guily in criminal court but the prosecutor/society/Govt etc continues to bring you to trial until they get the guilty verdict they desire.
CT
 
When did we start suing over criminal offenses?
Click to expand...

If, by we, you mean the US, since before the founding of our country. I think it is a good system. I don't always trust the government to react appropriately to address all wrongs. For example, lets say my neighbor damages some of my property. I call the police and, for whatever reason, they decline to take action. If there were no civil syatem, I would be SOL, since it would be up to the government to redress my wrong.

Another consideration is that the criminal system does nothing to compensate me for any financial loss.
 
The three previous posts hit it.

Just to clarify a point though. For double jeopardy to apply the action must be brought by the same sovereign(ie Fed vs State) and the two charges must have the same elements or be a lesser included or greater included offense(ie murder/manslaughter). For DJ not to apply the two charged offenses must EACH have an additional element that the other does not have. The Fed and state can charge someone with the same exact crime if it exists under federal and state law and not be subject to a DJ bar.

I dont think it is an outrage at all. Just because the evidence didnt meet the BRD standard doesnt mean it cant meet the civil preponderance standard. If someone kills a person they take away the spouses ability to have that persons wages support them and the same with the children. They should be entitled to compensation.

Do you think that the criminal standard is to high or the civil standard is to low? That is basically the jist of your argument. The standards are different because the country values money less than it does taking away liberty by putting someone in jail.
 
I understand the system, and I do not think that the standard is too high for criminal cases nor too low for civil. However, I do think that contemporary civil law can be abused.

I was under the impression that the intention of the double-jeopardy clause was to prevent the government from trying, and re-trying a defendant over and over again until they got a guilty verdict. However, it is current fashion to re-try a defendant in civil court for criminal actions if they did not get a guilty verdict the first time. I think this is wrong.

Take, for example, the OJ Simpson trial. Personally, I think he did it. However, a jury of his peers pronounced him "not guilty" of murder. If he isn't guilty of murder, how can he be liable for "wrongful death"? The potential for abuse is staggerring!

As for McVeigh, you bring up an interesting point. There is also de facto double-jeopardy with the Federal system. Take the Rodney King beating case. The police officers were found "not guilty" of assault (hence the riots). But then, they were tried for the Federal crime of "conspiring to deprive someone of their civil liberties", and found guilty (convieniently, after the riots). Personally, I think the officers were guilty, but that doesn't mean we should trash the Constitution to put them in jail.

What we have created is in effect, double-jeopardy. If you are accused of a crime, defend yourself in court, and found "not guilty" you may indeed be tried again, over and over, for the same crime.
 
For example, lets say my neighbor damages some of my property. I call the police and, for whatever reason, they decline to take action. If there were no civil syatem, I would be SOL, since it would be up to the government to redress my wrong.
Click to expand...
Not at all. If the government chose to do nothing, you could still sue.

The Fed and state can charge someone with the same exact crime if it exists under federal and state law and not be subject to a DJ bar.

I dont think it is an outrage at all.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. Tried twice for the same crime? Hello? Bueller?
 
You know, i think the civil court system has deeper historic roots than the criminal system. People redressing wrongs against one another is probably the oldest form of justice. Think about the old images of people bringing disputes before their monarch/religious leader.

There are cases when an act may not be criminal, but may still deserve a civil judgement. For example; lets say a man was put to death by the state, and it turned out that he was innocent. If the state met all of their burdons, and didnt commit any act of negligence then they are free of criminal acts. However, the wife and children of the excecuted man would have a legitimate claim at a wrongfull death suit (maybe).
 
There have been many cases of "jury nullification", particularly in cases of inter-racial crimes. Suppose one of your kids was murdered, and the jury verdict nullified the obvious evidence? Wouldn't you want the option of a civil suit? I would.

The previously-mentioned OJ case is an excellent example of jury nullification. The jury clearly nullified the evidence.
 
Ill-informed

"
Quote:
For example, lets say my neighbor damages some of my property. I call the police and, for whatever reason, they decline to take action. If there were no civil syatem, I would be SOL, since it would be up to the government to redress my wrong.

"Not at all. If the government chose to do nothing, you could still sue."

HOW? If there is NO CIVIL SYSTEM, there is NO RECOURSE. You obviously cannot sue under a process that does not exist! Grasp the concept.

Quote:
The Fed and state can charge someone with the same exact crime if it exists under federal and state law and not be subject to a DJ bar.

I dont think it is an outrage at all.

"Of course it is. Tried twice for the same crime? Hello? Bueller?"

Actually, it will not be "the same exact crime." White juries routinely exonerated Klansmen who killed blacks and civil rights workers. This did not prevent them from being charged again under FEDERAL law for violations of the victims' rights.

There may be a common act, but the elements differ. Hence, the possibility of facing state and federal penalties. That's not double jeopardy, which is facing the SAME charges brought by the SAME authority for the SAME act, after being tried on them already.
 
Actually, it will not be "the same exact crime." White juries routinely exonerated Klansmen who killed blacks and civil rights workers. This did not prevent them from being charged again under FEDERAL law for violations of the victims' rights.

There may be a common act, but the elements differ. Hence, the possibility of facing state and federal penalties. That's not double jeopardy, which is facing the SAME charges brought by the SAME authority for the SAME act, after being tried on them already.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify

The Fed and State can charge and try someone for the same exact crime. By this I mean if there is a crime that has elements A, B, C under state law, the Fed can charge you with a crime that has elements A, B, C under federal law.

They are different sovereigns and each have power. Otherwise incompetent prosecution on the states behalf could bar all federal prosecution. There aren't many areas where this comes up compared to the total amount of trials and crimes committed.
 
HOW? If there is NO CIVIL SYSTEM, there is NO RECOURSE. You obviously cannot sue under a process that does not exist! Grasp the concept.
Click to expand...

I am NOT proposing that we get rid of the civil court system. I AM saying that it has overstepped its authority and acted as a back-up court for criminal cases. This is double-jeopardy.

I have no problem with a bona-fide civil court case. Example: my neighbor chops down a dead tree on his property. It unintentionally falls the wrong way and damages my garage. Since the act was unintentional and not illegal, any dispute over settlement is clearly a civil matter.

I am criticizing the use of the civil courts to try people a second time for criminal offenses. Example: A woman accuses a man of stealing her purse. The man goes to court and provides evidence to a jury that the woman left the purse in his restaurant, and that is why he had it. The jury finds the man "not guilty". The woman then sues the man for "unlawful possession". This is wrong.

It is also wrong that the Fed can essentially re-name a crime and try you again for a crime you have already been found not guilty of. If McVeigh had been found "not guilty" you can almost guarantee that the system would be manipulated and he would have been charged again, for the same act, for "destruction of Federal property" or "EPA violations" or "felony noise ordinance violations". (Note: I DO actually think that McVeigh was responsible for the OK City bombing, this thread is not discussing that subject. I am simply using this as an example of the double jeopardy we have created in our legal system.)

I am not advocating the release of criminals. I am advocating strict adherence to the Constitution and trying people only ONCE for a crime.
 
Confused

I was not addressing my comments to you, as ought to have been clear from the fact that I did not quote you. :rolleyes:

You also fail to comprehend the meaning of "double jeopardy," which requires:

1. A trial on CRIMINAL charges;

2. Resulting in an acquittal or dismissal;

3. Followed by the SAME authority bringing the SAME charges resulting from the SAME incident against the SAME defendant.

As the federal government is not the state government and civil charges are not criminal charges, your examples fail to meet the criteria for "double jeopardy."
 
I was not addressing my comments to you, as ought to have been clear from the fact that I did not quote you.
Click to expand...

I know, but I didn't want the thread to drift into "should we get rid of the civil court system". That was not my question.

As the federal government is not the state government and civil charges are not criminal charges, your examples fail to meet the criteria for "double jeopardy."
Click to expand...

...and who is the gatekeeper of this mystical "criteria"? I thought the Fifth Amendment was quite clear, "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;" Now, I understand that a civil monetary judgement is not jeoparizing "life or limb", but the fact that you lose all your worldly possessions and go into debt is pretty darned close.

BUT, being tried twice for the same crime by the Feds is most certainly having your "life or limb" be in jeopardy twice. The Fifth Amendment says nothing about any exceptions for a different branch of government trying you twice, it simply says don't do it.
 
...and who is the gatekeeper of this mystical "criteria"? I thought the Fifth Amendment was quite clear, "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;" Now, I understand that a civil monetary judgement is not jeopardizing "life or limb", but the fact that you lose all your worldly possessions and go into debt is pretty darned close.

BUT, being tried twice for the same crime by the Feds is most certainly having your "life or limb" be in jeopardy twice. The Fifth Amendment says nothing about any exceptions for a different branch of government trying you twice, it simply says don't do it.
Click to expand...

The fifth also doesn't give a definition of what double jeopardy is. The standard we have been describing has been around for a while. It is also not very contested by any constitutional scholars as being OK. You really are barking up the wrong tree with this.

Each sovereign is independent and therefore has independent powers. You seem to argue that one should be able to trump the other. Which should trump which? The first to file? Fed over state...? The independence of both is a true basis of our constitution.
 
"Not at all. If the government chose to do nothing, you could still sue."

HOW? If there is NO CIVIL SYSTEM, there is NO RECOURSE. You obviously cannot sue under a process that does not exist! Grasp the concept.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I missed the "if there were no civil system" caveat.

And being tried twice for the same act is still being tried twice for the same act, even if you call it something different and someone else charges you for it.
 
Quote:
The fifth also doesn't give a definition of what double jeopardy is.



Huh?!?
Click to expand...

You are simply assuming it means by all sovereigns.

For those who dont think the fed and state should be able to charge for the same act.
Which sovereign should rule then? How do you decide what law trumps? Bigger budget/ Better prosecution facilities/ First to file... WHat is the standard?
 
Well, this is going to go in the direction of political theory...

The United States was originally just that, independant states that agreed to honor a limited set of principles listed in the Constitution, but the Civil War changed that.

Now, whatever the Fed says goes. So, to answer your question, we are supposed to have a sovereign state and a seperate, sovereign (but limited) Fed. This means that if one is accused of murder (a state crime) then the state and only the state can try you. But since we are now post-Civil War, you can be tried again on a whole bunch of made up Federal crimes (crimes in which you do not have to cross state lines to commit). Witness the lady from Washington who grows pot - no state lines are crossed and her state (Washington) says it is legal. The Fed comes in and charges her anyways.

Now, I realize that this particular example is not double jeopardy; it is over stepping jurisdiction, but it does prove my point - today, for better or worse, we have Federal supremacy.

On some level however, this issue of "how many sovereigns" is a moot one. The Constitution is clear - no second trial of the same crime. Every state has agreed to this when they were accepted into the Union. The Constitution does not quibble over Fed or state (or county or municipality for that matter). To say, "We can try someone twice because a different governing body is doing it" is equivalent to saying that "We can outlaw Judeaism in Denver because the Denver city council has jurisdiction within Denver".

Soon we will have Freedom of Speech but it will be a Federal crime to open your mouth...or a civil offense of "unlawful mouth opening".

:barf:
 
When did we start suing over criminal offenses? I would make the case that even though it only involves monetary punative measures, charging someone in civil court for a criminal action of which they have been found "not guilty" is double jeopardy.
Click to expand...
Back before William of Normandy (The Conquerer) started codifying English Common Law after 1066 I suppose.

The concept of 'Wergild', payment of money to satisfy a criminal offense, dates back that far. Prior to Wergild, offenses were repaid with violence. You injured a person, his family was permitted to injure you or a member of your family. To put an end to continuing violence and retaliation, laws evolved that assigned an amount of money to be paid to repay loss of life, loss of limb, and loss of property.

Eventually, law evolved into criminal law and civil law. Certain offenses were determined to be crimes against society. If one killed another who was without family, the state stepped in to ensure justice for the deceased on behalf of society, even if there was no family to demand and receive Wergild.

Even with the advent of criminal laws and punishment, civil laws dealing with damages that were not the interest or jurisdiction of the state did not disappear. Take for example writing bad checks. You receive a check written on account that does not have sufficient funds to cover the check. This is a criminal offense in many states. You take the check to the district attorney who prosecutes the person who wrote the check. For some reason the district attorney fails to prove to the jury the defendant had the knowledge there was not enough money in the account and the jury acquits the defendant. Does that mean you are out the money? No. You are entitled to pursue the case in civil court even though the district attorney no longer has any interest in your case.

Similarly as in the OJ Simpson case, twelve jurors said OJ was "Not Guilty". They didn't say he was innocent. Because of this, OJ could be and was successfully sued for wrongful death by the families of the two deceased. The families won, sort of. OJ's money is tied up in pensions, which are not touchable to satisfy civil judgments. Until the law is changed, OJ will continue to live a comfortable life as long as he does not own any property that can be seized by the sheriff to be converted into cash to pay the judgment creditors.

Pilgrim
 
Well, this is going to go in the direction of political theory...

The United States was originally just that, independant states that agreed to honor a limited set of principles listed in the Constitution, but the Civil War changed that.

Now, whatever the Fed says goes. So, to answer your question, we are supposed to have a sovereign state and a seperate, sovereign (but limited) Fed. This means that if one is accused of murder (a state crime) then the state and only the state can try you. But since we are now post-Civil War, you can be tried again on a whole bunch of made up Federal crimes (crimes in which you do not have to cross state lines to commit). Witness the lady from Washington who grows pot - no state lines are crossed and her state (Washington) says it is legal. The Fed comes in and charges her anyways.

Now, I realize that this particular example is not double jeopardy; it is over stepping jurisdiction, but it does prove my point - today, for better or worse, we have Federal supremacy.

On some level however, this issue of "how many sovereigns" is a moot one. The Constitution is clear - no second trial of the same crime. Every state has agreed to this when they were accepted into the Union. The Constitution does not quibble over Fed or state (or county or municipality for that matter). To say, "We can try someone twice because a different governing body is doing it" is equivalent to saying that "We can outlaw Judeaism in Denver because the Denver city council has jurisdiction within Denver".

Soon we will have Freedom of Speech but it will be a Federal crime to open your mouth...or a civil offense of "unlawful mouth opening".
Click to expand...

Here is another twist on Double Jeopardy. Two states can prosecute for the same crime. Some states allow for prosectuion of certain offenses if acts in furtherance of the offense occurs in the state. This then gives two states jurisdiction over the same crime. Who wins there if both states cant prosecute? (See Heath v. Alabama, 106 S. Ct. 433, 1985 if you doubt me)

It is an easy argument to simply say that "you can only be tried once". The problem is there are huge sovereignty issues between the various states and fed/ state. Allowing both to prosecute is the only way to allow all sovereigns to have power. Otherwise one state would be able to trump the other and the same with fed/state.
 
Pilgrim,

Thanks for the info. I suppose it has been for a long time.

Jeeper,

I think you have found the crux of the problem for this form of double-jeopardy: we do have hugh sovereignty issues in need of resolve. Personally, I think that the Fed has overstepped its authority on some issues, and not done its duty in protecting individual rights in other areas. I suppose this will always be the case as there is no perfect system, but I think if judges were to consider the intent of the Constitution we would be much better off.
 
Jeeper,
Personally, I think that the Fed has overstepped its authority on some issues, and not done its duty in protecting individual rights in other areas.
Click to expand...

Please tell me you are kidding! I think the fed has done everything perfect! :D :D :neener:

Like you said: overstepping their jurisdiction is really the biggest problem with double jeopardy. Although most people(outside the legal system) think that SCOTUS has been expanding the fed power, the Renquist court has been one of the biggest proponenets of states rights in the last 100 years. They are generally on the right track for state vs. Fed power issues. It just needs to be taken one step further. If there is a better limit on the inane definition of things like the commerce clause then the states would have more power shifted back to them.

I suppose this will always be the case as there is no perfect system, but I think if judges were to consider the intent of the Constitution we would be much better off.
Click to expand...

You are right, it is a very tough situation to try and resolve. Since I believe the states are the ones with all the power(under the constitution) then it is tough when two states claim jurisdiction over one crime. This is especially true if it is a murder and one state has the death penalty and the other doesnt. Both states have huge interests in protecting their own system of punishment.

I think the fed/state issue should be easier to resolve since there should be a line of who has the true power under the constitution on most issues. There will still always be some issues and crimes where there is true dual sovereignty though. Of course those would be the minority as compared to now.
 
Jeeper: I hope you'll be able to answer a question for me regarding double jeopardy. If a State eg., AL, charges a citizen for murder, under what Federal law would the feds also charge that same person for murder? I'm not talking about violation of the victim(s) civil rights or conspiracy to violate the victim(s) civil rights...I'm talking about both entities charging murder.

In the AL case that you cite, are both States charging for the same crime in the same manner, or is one State charging, for example, murder, with the other State charging something other than murder?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top