An opinion piece from Bermuda about double jeopardy

[Jack]

Perhaps it's that a defendant has to defend himself twice from the same charge.

It wasn't the same charge. If he didn't have money no one would have bothered. Though true not generally how that charge is used. Some people may not think that outcome was fair, but that family did have the right to pursue him financially. They also had the right to pursue ownership of his book, and to rename it. It's a messed up case all around, though really don't think the judicial system should be overhauled for everyone because of it.

[odeon]

Perhaps it's that a defendant has to defend himself twice from the same charge.

It wasn't the same charge. If he didn't have money no one would have bothered. Though true not generally how that charge is used. Some people may not think that outcome was fair, but that family did have the right to pursue him financially. They also had the right to pursue ownership of his book, and to rename it. It's a messed up case all around, though really don't think the judicial system should be overhauled for everyone because of it.

It was effectively the same charge. The only way to get money was to establish guilt.

[Jack]

It wasn't the same charge. Murder is a criminal charge punishable by imprisonment, and civil proceedings aren't prosecuted by the state. The burden of proof in civil court is based on probabilities, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because he had money, it's possible it could have been made a civil matter even if the results of the criminal trial had been different. It was an over sensationalized media hype fiasco which the police ruined on their own by blatantly planting evidence, and none of those people are reason enough to grant the state authority to repeatedly harass citizens with criminal charges.

[Semicolon]

It wasn't the same charge. Murder is a criminal charge punishable by imprisonment, and civil proceedings aren't prosecuted by the state. The burden of proof in civil court is based on probabilities, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because he had money, it's possible it could have been made a civil matter even if the results of the criminal trial had been different. It was an over sensationalized media hype fiasco which the police ruined on their own by blatantly planting evidence, and none of those people are reason enough to grant the state authority to repeatedly harass citizens with criminal charges.

The burden of proof is different for civil and criminal cases.

[odeon]

It wasn't the same charge. Murder is a criminal charge punishable by imprisonment, and civil proceedings aren't prosecuted by the state. The burden of proof in civil court is based on probabilities, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because he had money, it's possible it could have been made a civil matter even if the results of the criminal trial had been different. It was an over sensationalized media hype fiasco which the police ruined on their own by blatantly planting evidence, and none of those people are reason enough to grant the state authority to repeatedly harass citizens with criminal charges.

The burden of proof is different for civil and criminal cases.

Yes, it is, but it's irrelevant. The fact is that the civil case only happened because he was acquitted in the criminal one. Effectively, it's a loophole in your system.

[Semicolon]

It wasn't the same charge. Murder is a criminal charge punishable by imprisonment, and civil proceedings aren't prosecuted by the state. The burden of proof in civil court is based on probabilities, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because he had money, it's possible it could have been made a civil matter even if the results of the criminal trial had been different. It was an over sensationalized media hype fiasco which the police ruined on their own by blatantly planting evidence, and none of those people are reason enough to grant the state authority to repeatedly harass citizens with criminal charges.

The burden of proof is different for civil and criminal cases.

Yes, it is, but it's irrelevant. The fact is that the civil case only happened because he was acquitted in the criminal one. Effectively, it's a loophole in your system.

I suppose so, if you consider it like that. There's a similar loophole in that the federal government and the state government can each independently try a crime against both sets of laws.

[Jack]

Yes, it is, but it's irrelevant. The fact is that the civil case only happened because he was acquitted in the criminal one. Effectively, it's a loophole in your system.

If it's irrelevant then don't bring it up. That's no fact. They could have still sued his estate anyway if he were found guilty without any restitution, and I seriously doubt they would have sat idly by and watched him profit by writing a book about it. It would have been a loophole if it resulted in him having a criminal record and he were sent to prison. Don't know if he did it or not, but if he did, a loophole would mean he's been tried twice for the same charge, acquitted of that charge and then punished for it. He hasn't been punished for murder. He's been handed a bill and that book will pay a lot of it. Am guessing that's why it was written. His case is simply a bad example in a discussion of double jeopardy. When the victim's families are allowed to present the same charge in civil court, then it will be an example.

There's a similar loophole in that the federal government and the state government can each independently try a crime against both sets of laws.

That's still highly debatable as a loophole because the charges are in fact different and federal cases are held in federal courts. Not sure how that could be circumvented. In a way it's still like someone who faces multiple charges during the same trial because they committed multiple crimes in the same act, and then their sentences are also multiple, but the structure of the court system prevents that combination when federal crimes are part of the mix.

[Jack]

Have kind of lost track of what this is about. Double jeopardy is like suggesting people acquitted of murder before DNA technology should be revisited with DNA technology. What is new evidence? The bill of rights are designed to protect citizens from the government. Giving that protection away won't change the fact there are sometimes unjust results in the courts.

[odeon]

It wasn't the same charge. Murder is a criminal charge punishable by imprisonment, and civil proceedings aren't prosecuted by the state. The burden of proof in civil court is based on probabilities, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because he had money, it's possible it could have been made a civil matter even if the results of the criminal trial had been different. It was an over sensationalized media hype fiasco which the police ruined on their own by blatantly planting evidence, and none of those people are reason enough to grant the state authority to repeatedly harass citizens with criminal charges.

The burden of proof is different for civil and criminal cases.

Yes, it is, but it's irrelevant. The fact is that the civil case only happened because he was acquitted in the criminal one. Effectively, it's a loophole in your system.

I suppose so, if you consider it like that. There's a similar loophole in that the federal government and the state government can each independently try a crime against both sets of laws.

It's an outrage!

[odeon]

Yes, it is, but it's irrelevant. The fact is that the civil case only happened because he was acquitted in the criminal one. Effectively, it's a loophole in your system.

If it's irrelevant then don't bring it up.

I didn't. Semi did.

That's no fact. They could have still sued his estate anyway if he were found guilty without any restitution, and I seriously doubt they would have sat idly by and watched him profit by writing a book about it. It would have been a loophole if it resulted in him having a criminal record and he were sent to prison. Don't know if he did it or not, but if he did, a loophole would mean he's been tried twice for the same charge, acquitted of that charge and then punished for it. He hasn't been punished for murder. He's been handed a bill and that book will pay a lot of it. Am guessing that's why it was written. His case is simply a bad example in a discussion of double jeopardy. When the victim's families are allowed to present the same charge in civil court, then it will be an example.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.

[odeon]

Have kind of lost track of what this is about. Double jeopardy is like suggesting people acquitted of murder before DNA technology should be revisited with DNA technology. What is new evidence? The bill of rights are designed to protect citizens from the government. Giving that protection away won't change the fact there are sometimes unjust results in the courts.

But it might result in murderers being caught.

[Jack]

Actually you brought up establishing guilt, and I just made the point that they only needed establish a reasonable probability. Though agree it's irrelevant because a criminal charge and financial civil suit simply aren't the same thing. Don't mind agreeing to disagree because you can't give away my constitutional rights.

But it might result in murderers being caught.

Am sure those in authority would only do good things with such power.

[odeon]

Actually you brought up establishing guilt, and I just made the point that they only needed establish a reasonable probability. Though agree it's irrelevant because a criminal charge and financial civil suit simply aren't the same thing. Don't mind agreeing to disagree because you can't give away my constitutional rights.

But it might result in murderers being caught.

Am sure those in authority would only do good things with such power.

The funny thing is that your government already does things that your laws explicitly forbid. I guess you do need the protection.

If Lit was still around, he'd have listed the wrongdoings of the Swedish government by now.

[Jack]

The funny thing is, you have a way of saying that like the US is the only place where power corrupts. Thanks for the pity. If Lit were here,
I'd probably appreciate the distraction.

[odeon]

The funny thing is, you have a way of saying that like the US is the only place where power corrupts. Thanks for the pity. If Lit were here,
I'd probably appreciate the distraction.

That isn't my intention. I suppose it's at least partly because the US is, um, rather visible in this regard. *cough* the NSA *cough*

Sweden, for example, is rather boring in that respect. Sure, there's corruption, but there's just not enough power.