• O.J. Simpson

    OJ Simpson has been in the headlines quite a lot recently. Today, it's regarding a ruling in Los Angeles spearheaded by attorney David Cooke. The ruling forced Simpson's attorney to fork over $3,500 he was holding for the former NFL star.


    Aside from Simpson's NFL Pension and Florida Home, every penny 'The Juice' earns must be handed over in accordance with a 1997 court ruling, which found Simpson responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman and ordered him to pay $33.5 million to their families in 'damages.'

    It raises once again a very interesting issue regarding the O.J. Simpson case - and it has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. It's simply how ethical it is for a CIVIL court to find a man guilty of a crime for which a CRIMINAL court exonerated him.

    The logistics of it are easy to understand. In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the defendant committed the crime. In a civil case, the jury simply has to decide which side they're on. That's why lawyers were able to get a 'guilty' verdict in the civil case whereas they couldn't in the criminal one.

    But it does boggle my mind. I'd have thought, in a civil court case, the most overwhelming piece of evidence in Simpson's favour was that the US Criminal Courts had declared: "There is insufficient evidence to convict this man of this offence."

    But the theory goes that a 'not guilty' verdict in a criminal case is very different to being truly innocent. It means that the prosecution were simply not able to prove conclusively, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Simpson committed the crime. It doesn't mean he didn't do it.

    It does make me wonder about the whole issue of double indemnity and the sheer craziness of America's litigation culture. We're lucky that the trend didn't catch on. Otherwise criminal cases might not be fought on physical evidence and witness testimony, but on heresay, rumour and clever legal wrangles. Criminals wouldn't do time or community service - they'd simply pay out settlements.

    I'm not going to comment on whether Mr Simpson committed the crime or not. The fact is he was found 'not guilty' by the American legal system. In civilised society, that should have been the end of it.
    .

0 comments:

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)