Robert Blake Murdered His Wife

Cleon said:
No, that is most certainly an excuse. Double Jeopardy is to prevent exactly this sort of legal abuse--to keep people from being dragged through the legal system until a "correct" verdict is reached.
Click to expand...
I don't see the excuse. I'm really not sure what you are talking about. Double Jeopardy is not what you define it as.

How is that "more important?"
Click to expand...
Depending on the answer it might demonstrate that you also agree with retrying a defendant found "not guilty" for the same offense. I find most people who are against civil cases for the same crime are not against civil rights cases for the same crime.

You're playing semantic games to excuse this.
Click to expand...
And what "semantic games" am I playing? Civil rights abuses and civil cases by your logic have the same effect. They both drag the defendant through the legal system searching for a "correct" verdict (if you assume that logic). Please to explain how this is a semantic game and not your unwillingness to admit that you are not consistent in this regard? Unless you are against such trials. In which case I am sorry. You only need to state whether you are for or against.

Have fun, I won't play along.
Click to expand...
That's unfortunate. I think the civil rights cases are significant and worth commenting on. How are they not double jeopardy by your logic?
 
Simply put, we just need to break this down to its most basic components.

Criminal Trial: Found not guilty. This means a jury of your peers (maybe a judge) has determined you did not commit the offense "beyond a reasonable doubt" based upon the the evidence presented. Because you found not guilty, you will not be incarcerated for a predetermined period of time.

If someone is not happy with this outcome, they are not allowed to try you again for the same crime, A.K.A double jeopardy.

If someone is not happy with this outcome, they ARE allowed to sue you in civil court for any number of grievances pertaining to crime you allegedly commited. You have NOT actually committed a crime and the justice system itself has been used to determine this, but you can still be held liable for said crime. This is just silliness. You can dress it up as civil rights violations or pain and suffering, or whatever you like, but in the end, the finger has been pointed a second time at someone when they have been legally absolved of the crime.

I do indeed have a serious problem with a civil and criminal court system that can "prove" someone committed a crime in order to adequately compensate the "victim" but cannot actually convict the person of said crime.

Santa
 
Santa666 said:
Simply put, we just need to break this down to its most basic components.

Criminal Trial: Found not guilty. This means a jury of your peers (maybe a judge) has determined you did not commit the offense "beyond a reasonable doubt" based upon the the evidence presented. Because you found not guilty, you will not be incarcerated for a predetermined period of time.

If someone is not happy with this outcome, they are not allowed to try you again for the same crime, A.K.A double jeopardy.

If someone is not happy with this outcome, they ARE allowed to sue you in civil court for any number of grievances pertaining to crime you allegedly commited. You have NOT actually committed a crime and the justice system itself has been used to determine this, but you can still be held liable for said crime. This is just silliness. You can dress it up as civil rights violations or pain and suffering, or whatever you like, but in the end, the finger has been pointed a second time at someone when they have been legally absolved of the crime.

I do indeed have a serious problem with a civil and criminal court system that can "prove" someone committed a crime in order to adequately compensate the "victim" but cannot actually convict the person of said crime.

Santa
Click to expand...
Cool. I respect your opinion. I don't agree for the reasons stated but that is fine.

Could you respond to the point about civil rights violations? Would you be against trying a defendant found "not guilty" for murder for the same crime for civil rights violations?
 
What about Reputed Ku Klux Klan member Edgar Ray Killen? He was found not guilty for the murder of Andrew Goodman, 20, and Michael Schwerner, 24. He is now on trial for violating their civil rights.

Right? Wrong? Double Jeopardy? Why or why not?

It seems no one wants to touch this one, why?
 
RandFan said:
Cool. I respect your opinion. I don't agree for the reasons stated but that is fine.

Could you respond to the point about civil rights violations? Would you be against trying a defendant found "not guilty" for murder for the same crime for civil rights violations?
Click to expand...

Yes I am. If you did not commit a crime, what civil rights did you violate?
 
RandFan said:
What about Reputed Ku Klux Klan member Edgar Ray Killen? He was found not guilty for the murder of Andrew Goodman, 20, and Michael Schwerner, 24.

He is now on trial for violating their civil rights.

Right? Wrong? Double Jeopardy? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

I already asked this question is response to your other post, but here it is again. If he legally did not commit a crime, what civil rights did he violate?

Santa
 
Santa666 said:
I already asked this question is response to your other post, but here it is again. If he legally did not commit a crime, what civil rights did he violate?

Santa
Click to expand...
A not guilty verdict is not a scientific finding of fact. It is a legal determination that the state did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you don't have a point, you do.

In any event I commended you for your logical consistency.
 
RandFan said:
A not guilty verdict is not a scientific finding of fact. It is a legal determination that the state did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you don't have a point, you do.

In any event I commended you for your logical consistency.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

We are at an "agree to disagree" point, I believe. I certainly agree that a not guilty verdict is not a scientific finding of fact. It is however, a lawful finding of fact (or as you said, not proven beyond a reasonable doubt). We simply view civil suits and double jeopardy in different lights. Let me finish with a final question.

Put yourself in a defendant's shoes for a moment. You have been accused, tried, and acquitted of a crime. Now, you are being sued in civil court for civil rights violations pertaining to the very crime for such you were just acquitted. How might you feel about it then? ;)


Santa
 
Personally, if it were my mother, and I was convinced the guy had gotten off because he'd hired a good lawyer to beat the stuffings out of a career county employee in the courtroom, I'd want him broken. I'd sue the SOB for $30 million - more if he had more. I mean, what do you figure it cost Blake to get off? A million, maybe? That's probably a lot less than a divorce would have cost him. Why should it be cheaper to kill your wife than to divorce her?
 
Santa666 said:
Thank you.

We are at an "agree to disagree" point, I believe. I certainly agree that a not guilty verdict is not a scientific finding of fact. It is however, a lawful finding of fact (or as you said, not proven beyond a reasonable doubt). We simply view civil suits and double jeopardy in different lights. Let me finish with a final question.

Put yourself in a defendant's shoes for a moment. You have been accused, tried, and acquitted of a crime. Now, you are being sued in civil court for civil rights violations pertaining to the very crime for such you were just acquitted. How might you feel about it then? ;)


Santa
Click to expand...
If innocent I'd be angry and I would feel the system was unfair. I'd likely feel differently about double jeopardy. If guilty I'd consider myself lucky not to be in jail.
 
Cleon said:
A man is being punished for something for which he was found "not guilty." Ergo, it's an end run around double jeopardy.

But you knew that.
Click to expand...

He was found "not guilty" by the state. That is irrelevant to the civil case, as that is between private parties. Ergo, no "end run". But you knew that.
 
For Cleon, let's try this example:

You're standing in front of your house. Your car is parked at the curb. Another car comes racing down the street, spins out of control, and hits your car, causing $10,000 worth of damage. You have no insurance. You call the police. They come and investigate, and at the end of their investigation, they charge the driver with "careless and imprudent driving".

So, the case goes to a jury trial. The jury finds the driver Not Guilty.

Question: Do you sue the driver for $10,000?

Game.

Set.

Match.
 
Eventually you guys will realize that Cleon really doesn't care about what you know, only what he thinks.;)

DOUBLE JEOPARDY - Being tried twice for the same offense; prohibited by the 5th Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution. '[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989).

Separate punishments in multiple criminal prosecution are constitutionally permissible, however, if the punishments are not based upon the same offenses.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d075.htm
Click to expand...
Blake was not tried twice for the same offense in a criminal court. Ergo no double jeopardy.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
He was found "not guilty" by the state. That is irrelevant to the civil case, as that is between private parties. Ergo, no "end run". But you knew that.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant semantics. But you knew that.

He is being punished for something for which he was found "not guilty." Dance all you like, you're not getting around that.
 
Cleon said:
Irrelevant semantics. But you knew that.

He is being punished for something for which he was found "not guilty." Dance all you like, you're not getting around that.
Click to expand...

It's instructive to note that you ignored my "car crash" example. Why? Because it effectively and efficiently destroyed your argument.

I win this debate. But you knew that.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
It's instructive to note that you ignored my "car crash" example. Why? Because it effectively and efficiently destroyed your argument.
Click to expand...

Actually, I ignored it because it's a bad analogy, but bad analogies are easy arguments to make.

I win this debate. But you knew that.
Click to expand...

Sure, 1inChrist. Whatever.

As I said, you think it's ok to punish someone for a crime they were found Not Guilty of. I don't. To each their own.
 
Here's to romance....

Romantic.jpg
 
Cleon said:
Actually, I ignored it because it's a bad analogy, but bad analogies are easy arguments to make.



.
Click to expand...

Would you explain why you think it is a bad analogy? I find myself agreeing with RandFan, BPSCG, The Central Scrutinizer.

__ _ __ ___ __ ___ ___ __
Speaking of standards of evidence, I am going to request a relatively high standard of evidence for your claim that it is not fair, given that your claim goes against 200+ years of case law, the opinions of every federal and state judge ever elected or appointed, and the opinions of every judge who has ever served on the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom