Civil court abuse

[Jeeper]

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.

Here is a link to a list of statutes that carry a federal murder charge.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=29&did=192

McVeigh was dual charged like this for murder in a federal facility and then the state charged him for state 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?

Both states charged with murder. The guy hired people in one state and they killed his wife in the other and there was some kidnapping also. I forgot the whole fact scenario. Basically then CAN charge with the same crime if they overlap. Some states have a statute where an act in furtherance of the crime in the jurisdiction is what is needed for the prosecution in that state. If there are multiple acts that are needed in the crime then these can take place in many places giving multiple places jurisdiction.

 

[Trebor]

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.

How can you say the civil court has "overstepped it's authority" and acted as a "back up court for criminal cases" when the cases are brought forward by completely different parties and the penalties are different?

There are some fundamental points here you don't quite understand.

You hit someone over the head with a baseball bat. They receive permament brain damage. The action was a crime. The state can prosecute you for the crime. The state can inflict punishment for the crime if you are convicted. You can go to jail. The state is the one who has standing to prosecture you became you violated the law.

The citizen you injured is not "made whole" just by the fact that the state choose to prosecute you. The citizen has the right to seek redress for the damage you did to him in civil court. He's brain damaged and unable to work and the civil court will determine if you are responsible for damages. The citizen has standing to sue you because of the damage you did to him.

The fact that your action was against the law is irrelevant to his case. You could commit an action that damaged him that was within the law and he could still seek redress. (It will matter to the Jury though, which is why the civil suits usually wait until after the criminal charges are resolved. A conviction makes a stronger case in civil court)

It is entirerely possible that the state was unable to meet the higher standard of proof required in criminal court and that the state's prosecution of you was unsuccesful. You were found "Not Guilty."

In the civil suit, the citizen you injured does not have to meet the higher standards used in criminal court. They don't have to prove you were responsible "beyond a reasonable doubt." Your liberty is NOT on the line as you won't go to jail if you loose. If you loose you are not being punished by the state for the crime, you are instead attempting to "make the victim whole" by compensating them for the damage you caused by your actions. That's why you could win the criminal trail and loose the civil trail.

The ability of a person to seek redress from the person who "harmed" them is at the very heart of the civil court system. You can't restrict that by, for example, saying that someone can't seek civil damages against someone who also committed a crime against them, without destroying the system.

Now, if you faced the possibility of jail time for losing a CIVIL Case, after you'd already beat the rap, in Criminal Court, than your argument that civil court was a "backup" to criminal court would make sense.

In criminal court, you are being "punished" by the state for your offense.

In civil court, you are paying restitution to the wronged party in an attempt to make them whole. (Note that so-called "punitive damages" are only awarded after the determination of responsibility has been made. Those extra damages are suppossed to make up for the grevious act you committed against the party you wronged. They aren't punishment by the state)

 

[Trebor]

Aha! After I wrote that last post I re-read one of your other posts and think I spotted the heart of your misunderstanding.

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.

You are correct. "Double Jeopardy" keeps the state from just constantly retrying you until they get 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.

Here's your mistake. In the civil case, the defendant is NOT being "re-tried" for their criminal actions. The criminal actions were resolved (one way or the other) in the criminal trail. That's where "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" comes in.

The civil trail is NOT a second attempt to get a "Guilty" verdict against the defendant. The case is NOT brought forward by the government so you are not being "re-tried. " The defendant will not be found "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" in the civil case. The defendant's guilt or innocence is NOT being determined.

The civil case is as a whole separate action, brought by a completely different party, that is only to determine if you need to pay damages to the person you wronged.

 

[Rockstar]

Jeeper: Thanks for the link. I'm just recalling from memory, so might be recalling incorrectly, but I'm pretty sure that Nichols wasn't charged on the state murder charges until the outcome of the Fed case was known.

I don't believe that McVeigh was ever charged with murder by the state. If that's wrong, please correct me.

 

[Jeeper]

You are correct. I was thinking about Nichols.

 

[Fletchette]

Trebor,

I think I have effectively lost the arguement that the Civil Courts are committing double jeopardy, per yours and other's very helpful comments.

I am still of the opinion that the Fed is committing double jeopardy on a routine basis. Jeeper has convinced me that the crux of this problem is that we, as a nation, have not specified the sovereignty jurisdictions of state v. state and Fed v. state. The Fed's use (misuse) of the commerce clause is a big reason for the overlapping jurisdictions.

I am hoping that Roberts will continue pushing towards states-rights (I would prefer to call this "clearly defined sovereignty jurisdictions" as states have powers, not rights. Alas, my title is not as catchy!). A Supreme Court decision refuting the use of the commerce clause except for strictly commerce issues would go a long way to rectifying the situation.

 

[lysander]

In actuality the Federal Judiciary was granted "supreme" authority by the Constitution. (hence the Supreme Court) Initially, that authority was specifically limited to an enumerated list which fell under Federal jurisdiction at the time the Constitution was ratified. However, Congress was authorized to create lower courts as it saw fit. As such we have experienced "government function creep" over the years. The vast majority of cases are tried in State courts...and in cases where there is a jurisdictional concern, the courts have fairly well established guidelines to get the case in the correct pipeline. The duality of a Federal system of government can be a blessing and a curse.

Source of Federal Court System is Article 3 of CONUS

Civil Court is another matter...and good thing...because it speaks to one of the fundamental premises of liberty...that we are responsible for our own actions and beholden to those whose rights we trample. Civil court allows individuals to seek justice on their OWN behalf...instead of hoping that the State does it for them.

I am of the opinion that anyone who has a crime committed against them should bring suit against the miscreant who committed the crime. Redress and restitution should be piled in on top of incarceration and rehabilitation. You serve your time for society to square things up with society...and you pay up to make things square with the person you hurt. Seems just to me....