OJ Simpson book "If I Did It"

sgx.saint said:
Either way, he did, he didn't, the book should have never been released as its in very bad taste imo.

Making profit from their deaths, especially when he was involved either way.

The guy sounds like a right ****.

Naked Gun was funny though :)
Click to expand...

Yep if thats the way it happened its pretty crap! You would have thought he'd be wanting to put the whole thing behind him and move on.... I guess he needed the money or something.

Still, the book as it was going to be released was halted and they attempted to destroy all copies. Ownership of the book has been passed onto Ron Goldmans family and they are releasing the book under a new title.
 
yak.h'cir said:
Yep if thats the way it happened its pretty crap! You would have thought he'd be wanting to put the whole thing behind him and move on.... I guess he needed the money or something.

Still, the book as it was going to be released was halted and they attempted to destroy all copies. Ownership of the book has been passed onto Ron Goldmans family and they are releasing the book under a new title.
Click to expand...

That's better news then, rather the victim profits than the purpetrator.

The Goldman family are the victims right? :)
 
you can be tried again for the same crime if new evidence arises - IF YOU ARE FOUND INNOCENT in the first trial.
.

you are thinking of the "double jeopardy" thing where once you are found guilty of a crime and serve your punishment you can't be found guilty of that crime again - like the movie - her husband set her up and they found her guilty of murder but once she was out of prison she could actually kill him because he was still alive!
 
You can't be imprisoned by a civil court.

However, it is interesting that in the civil trial that followed the criminal trial, OJ was held liable for the deaths and had to pay millions of dollars.
 
jdickerson said:
Yep, quite a recent change. Not a bad one mind you.
Click to expand...

Nope, you can't be imprisoned by a civil court, because the burden of proof is completely different to that of a criminal court.

And yes you can be tried twice, that's what a retrial is :rolleyes:

PS. Feel free to prove me wrong and laugh at me.
 
jidh007 said:
PS. Feel free to prove me wrong and laugh at me.
Click to expand...

well you did ask so...

jidh007 said:
the burden of proof is completely different to that of a criminal court.
Click to expand...

Whilst the civil law burden of proof is usually simply 'more probable than not' (Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) or JSB Crown Court Bench Book: Specimen Directions, whichever you prefer), since 1950 (Bater v Bater ) it has been clear that the mavity of the allegation must be taken into account. That is to say that if your civil claim is based on a criminal wrong then the burden is necessarily higher. Indeed, since Campbell v Hamlet 2005 and the whole concept of 'standards within standards' it is quite possible for a civil court to be applying a burden that is indistinguishable from that of the criminal law burden. When would this apply? Well from reading the judgement it is quite clear that a situation like this, a murder, is the exact type of situation where the 'standards within standards' concept would be activated to allow such a high burden of proof. Other such cases are where, if the alligation were proved to be true, it would materially affect the livelihood of the defendant. Indeed there have been numerous cases where, following a civil law case, the CPS has been spurred on to take a case to the criminal courts where they previously have been unwilling to do so.

That's how the law stands in the UK. In America - who knows; they probably toss dice or something. :p

fini
 
Last edited:
It still functions differently to a criminal court though; civil is on a balance of probabilities and criminal must be beyond all reasonable doubt. My point was that if civil courts could put people in prison that would be pretty scary as it would be possible for someone to be put away if the court was only say 51% sure. Criminal on the otherhand is basically 99.99%.
 
jidh007 said:
It still functions differently to a criminal court though; civil is on a balance of probabilities and criminal must be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
No the burdens are not on the balance of probabilities in a civil case where murder's being alleged - that's what I explained in my post.

jidh007 said:
My point was that if civil courts could put people in prison that would be pretty scary as it would be possible for someone to be put away if the court was only say 51% sure. Criminal on the otherhand is basically 99.99%.
Click to expand...
The only problem with civil courts putting people in prison would be the absence of a jury (in all, but defamation cases). This is due to the standard actually being very flexible and - well I explained all this in my post above.
 
fini said:
CorrectionsQUOTE]

Ok, I probably misunderstood your post a little :o You're right I imagine, only really studied criminal law in some depth. But I still don't really understand how the burden of proof can be any different, if alleged murder in a civil case is then taken through the CPS and into a criminal court anyway?

Oh sod it :p
Click to expand...
 
In a civil case where murder was alleged and found (in all but name, being the main thrust of the argument), then the CPS started a criminal case the main difference in the two cases would be the presence of a jury. This does have quiet an effect on the style of advocacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom