Robert Blake Murdered His Wife

[Cleon]

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

So you also agree that people should be punished even when they're found Not Guilty. Ok.

How is it a bad analogy? Very simple. In TCS' case, the fact that the person crashed the car and is responsible for the crash is not in dispute. Whether they're actually "driving recklessly" or were looking for a cigarette lighter, they caused the crash. (TCS forgot to mention they would be found guilty of driving without insurance.)

Here, Robert Blake was found Not Guilty of murdering his wife. So they sued him--for murdering his wife. You can call it "found liable for her death," but the actual activity involved is exactly the same as what he was found Not Guilty for. The person in TCS' example could not be driving recklessly and still be responsible for the crash; the only way for Robert Blake to be "liable for her death" is if he is, in fact, guilty of what he was found Not Guilty of.

Everything beyond that is legal semantics. Therefore, it's an end run around Double Jeopardy to punish someone who was found Not Guilty.

 

[Ladewig]

So you also agree that people should be punished even when they're found Not Guilty. Ok.

How is it a bad analogy? Very simple. In TCS' case, the fact that the person crashed the car and is responsible for the crash is not in dispute. Whether they're actually "driving recklessly" or were looking for a cigarette lighter, they caused the crash. (TCS forgot to mention they would be found guilty of driving without insurance.)

Here, Robert Blake was found Not Guilty of murdering his wife. So they sued him--for murdering his wife. You can call it "found liable for her death," but the actual activity involved is exactly the same as what he was found Not Guilty for. The person in TCS' example could not be driving recklessly and still be responsible for the crash; the only way for Robert Blake to be "liable for her death" is if he is, in fact, guilty of what he was found Not Guilty of.

Everything beyond that is legal semantics. Therefore, it's an end run around Double Jeopardy to punish someone who was found Not Guilty.

No. It is not "exactly the same as what he was found not guilty of."

It is a very useful analogy because in murder cases prosecutors must demonstrate intent, as opposed to manslaughter charges. One could easily imagine a case where there were 50 witnesses and 5 videotapes of a shooting and the shooter was charged with murder. One possible defense to murder charges is that the shooting was an accident. If the jury believed he shot the gun but that there was not intent to fire the weapon, then the jury (per the judge's instructions) must find the person innocent. Relatives of the dead person (and everyone else) know that he shot the person and are free to bring a civil case against the shooter.

repeating because you may not have seen it added to a previous post.

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.

 

[Cleon]

No. It is not "exactly the same as what he was found not guilty of."

Really? What exactly is the title of this thread?

He was found Not Guilty of killing his wife. He is now being punished for...Killing his wife.

It is a very useful analogy because in murder cases prosecutors must demonstrate intent, as opposed to manslaughter charges. One could easily imagine a case where there were 50 witnesses and 5 videotapes of a shooting and the shooter was charged with murder. One possible defense to murder charges is that the shooting was an accident. If the jury believed he shot the gun but that there was not intent to fire the weapon, then the jury (per the judge's instructions) must find the person innocent.

Not innocent. "Not guilty." Don't lecture me on legal precision if you can't get that bit right.

But while this other analogy is all when and good, it is clearly not the case here, is it?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

How is it a bad analogy? Very simple. In TCS' case, the fact that the person crashed the car and is responsible for the crash is not in dispute.

El-wrong-a-reno! The "fact" that the person is responsible for the crash is very much in dispute. The jury found them not guilty. You forgot that part.

Whether they're actually "driving recklessly" or were looking for a cigarette lighter, they caused the crash. (TCS forgot to mention they would be found guilty of driving without insurance.)

How do you know they don't have insurance? What if they do? Facts presumed that are not in evidence. But you knew that.

Here, Robert Blake was found Not Guilty of murdering his wife. So they sued him--for murdering his wife. You can call it "found liable for her death," but the actual activity involved is exactly the same as what he was found Not Guilty for. The person in TCS' example could not be driving recklessly and still be responsible for the crash; the only way for Robert Blake to be "liable for her death" is if he is, in fact, guilty of what he was found Not Guilty of.

I have no idea what this means.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Robert Blake was acquitted of:

• one count of murder with a special circumstance
• two counts of solicitation of murder

Jurors acquitted him of the murder count as well as one count of solicitation of murder. They deadlocked on a second solicitation.

Robert Blake was found liable of:

• likely causing the death Bonny Lee Bakley, by killing her himself or getting someone else to do it.

I think he wanted to dump her like a hot potato but I feel he isn't liable. Bonnie was killed by A) a punk trying to rob her as she sat in the car waiting - see: Bill Cosby's son or B) one of Bonny's hundreds of other scam victims - or one of their associates. Blake is looney but Boonie ripped off and defrauded alot of people. She had many enemies and didn't exactly lay low as they say.

 

[Cleon]

El-wrong-a-reno! The "fact" that the person is responsible for the crash is very much in dispute. The jury found them not guilty. You forgot that part.

No, I didn't. Your story simply said they were found "not guilty" of reckless driving. Not that they weren't found responsible for the crash. See, there's a difference.

How do you know they don't have insurance? What if they do? Facts presumed that are not in evidence. But you knew that.

El-wrong-a-reno! What actually happened was I made a mistake. The first time I read "you have no insurance" I thought that meant the driver had no insurance. Which is why you shouldn't respond to posts before your morning caffeine. My bad.

I have no idea what this means.

Then I can't help you.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No, I didn't. Your story simply said they were found "not guilty" of reckless driving. Not that they weren't found responsible for the crash. See, there's a difference.

El-wrong-a-reno again! A jury can only return a verdict on those charges that are brought before them. The driver was charged with reckless driving and found not guilty. The jury is silent on all other matters. Try to keep up.

Then I can't help you.

You could, by taking an English Composition course at your local college. Then repost your poorly written response. That will help me understand it. There, I just helped you!

So, do you sue the guy that wrecked you car for $10,000? It's a simple yes or no.

 

[Cleon]

El-wrong-a-reno again! A jury can only return a verdict on those charges that are brought before them. The driver was charged with reckless driving and found not guilty. The jury is silent on all other matters. Try to keep up.

Hoo boy, you don't even know what you're arguing anymore.

A jury can only return a verdict on the charges brought--correct.
Therefore, returning a verdict on that charge does not determine responsibility in the crash.


Understand now, or do I have to use smaller words?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hoo boy, you don't even know what you're arguing anymore.

A jury can only return a verdict on the charges brought--correct.
Therefore, returning a verdict on that charge does not determine responsibility in the crash.


Understand now, or do I have to use smaller words?

Evasion noted.

I will answer for you.

Cleon: "Yes, I sue the driver for $10,000. But, if he is found responsible for the accident, isn't he being "punished twice". Using my tortured logic, this seems like an end run around double jeapordy. But I need the money. So I admit this makes me a hypocrite."

So there you go - you have at least admitted that you are a hypocrite.

 

[Cleon]

Evasion noted.

I will answer for you.

Cleon: "Yes, I sue the driver for $10,000. But, if he is found responsible for the accident, isn't he being "punished twice". Using my tortured logic, this seems like an end run around double jeapordy. But I need the money. So I admit this makes me a hypocrite."

So there you go - you have at least admitted that you are a hypocrite.

Oy.

Y'all have fun now, but keep in mind intellectual masturbation tends to get boring pretty quickly.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Oy.

Y'all have fun now, but keep in mind intellectual masturbation tends to get boring pretty quickly.

Resignation accepted.

I have notched another victory in my belt.

 

[Santa666]

I have decided to come to Cleon's defense here. TCS, you have posted an example regarding someone without insurance running his car into Cleon's and causing 10,000 worth of damage. They are charged with driving recklessly and found not guilty. Why might they have been found not guilty? Perhaps they presented a legitimate excuse for why they struck the car. For whatever reason, the jury did not believe the person was driving recklessly. There is no dispute as to whether they actually hit the car or not, but whether they did so recklessly. If the jury was asked whether the person charged with striking the other car actually HIT the other car, then determined that the person DID NOT hit the car, then he could not be held liable. But in your example, there was no question of whether the person charged hit the car, only whether they were driving recklessly. This example is not quite adequate to compare to what we have been talking about.


Santa

 

[bob_kark]

Ok, so are you upset because you believe that this violates Double Jeopardy or are you upset because there are different burdens of proof for criminal and civil trials? I ask because the debate seems to jump back and forth here.

 

[Santa666]

Ok, so are you upset because you believe that this violates Double Jeopardy or are you upset because there are different burdens of proof for criminal and civil trials? I ask because the debate seems to jump back and forth here.

They end up being the same thing. The differing standards allow liability for a crime in civil court that you have not been found to have even committed in criminal court. It can be disguised by whatever means one wishes; if the law says you didn't commit the crime, how then can you be liable for damages for having commited said crime? Sounds like double jeopardy to me.


Santa

 

[bob_kark]

They end up being the same thing. The differing standards allow liability for a crime in civil court that you have not been found to have even committed in criminal court. It can be disguised by whatever means one wishes; if the law says you didn't commit the crime, how then can you be liable for damages for having commited said crime? Sounds like double jeopardy to me.


Santa

Well, they're not the same thing. If it were a problem with the differing standards between a civil and criminal trial, you could argue that the burden of proof should be greater for civil trials. However, this would not keep a civil trial from occuring after a defendant was judged "not guilty" by a criminal court. If you were to argue that a civil trial following a "not guilty" criminal trial verdict violated Double Jeopardy, then the standards for a civil trial would be moot.

 

[Santa666]

Well, they're not the same thing. If it were a problem with the differing standards between a civil and criminal trial, you could argue that the burden of proof should be greater for civil trials. However, this would not keep a civil trial from occuring after a defendant was judged "not guilty" by a criminal court. If you were to argue that a civil trial following a "not guilty" criminal trial verdict violated Double Jeopardy, then the standards for a civil trial would be moot.

With that, I would have to say if you did not commit a crime in the eyes of the law, then you cannot be held liable for commiting that crime. So, my main point is the issue of double jeopardy.

Santa

 

[RandFan]

Ladewig

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.

Worthy of note.

 

[bob_kark]

With that, I would have to say if you did not commit a crime in the eyes of the law, then you cannot be held liable for commiting that crime. So, my main point is the issue of double jeopardy.

Santa

Ok, so would you agree to two stipulations?

1. a person who is found "not guilty" in a criminal trial may not, in fact, be innocent?

2. Jail time or the death penalty would be more serious punishments than a financial penalty?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I have decided to come to Cleon's defense here. TCS, you have posted an example regarding someone without insurance running his car into Cleon's and causing 10,000 worth of damage. They are charged with driving recklessly and found not guilty. Why might they have been found not guilty? Perhaps they presented a legitimate excuse for why they struck the car. For whatever reason, the jury did not believe the person was driving recklessly. There is no dispute as to whether they actually hit the car or not, but whether they did so recklessly. If the jury was asked whether the person charged with striking the other car actually HIT the other car, then determined that the person DID NOT hit the car, then he could not be held liable. But in your example, there was no question of whether the person charged hit the car, only whether they were driving recklessly. This example is not quite adequate to compare to what we have been talking about.
Santa

A couple of points:

1) I never said the driver didn't have insurance
2) What if the driver's defense was that they were not behind the wheel? It was their evil twin brother. The jury buys it.

The simple question is, do you sue the driver? Now Cleon, aka "Shanek Jr.", kept avoiding that question, because he knew I had him boxed in to a corner. If he answers "no", he looks like an idiot. If he answers "yes" (the obvious answer, and the one he desperately wanted to give - and ultimately did), he is exposed as a hypocrite.

 

[Santa666]

Ok, so would you agree to two stipulations?

1. a person who is found "not guilty" in a criminal trial may not, in fact, be innocent?

2. Jail time or the death penalty would be more serious punishments than a financial penalty?

1. most certainly someone found "not guilty" may in fact be guilty. The criminal justice system has its flaws, both in finding the guilty, not guilty and the reverse, finding those who are not guilty, guilty. Double jeopardy exists because we are to put our trust in the findings of that system, and prosecutors cannot continually bring charges until they find a set of jurors who might side with them. **Let me note that "trusting" the findings of that system is still congruent with the appeals process because the appeals process is a part of said system.**

2. The death penalty is a far more serious punishment than jail time or a financial penalty. I will not state jail time is a more serious punishment than a financial penalty. There are many scenarios where jail time could be better. Perhaps a person has plenty of money and that money will sustain that person's family while he is in jail. If that person is slapped with a large financial penalty, it could very well ruin him and his family. This comparison is not so set in stone.


Santa