LogFAQs > #931163059

Dynalo posted...

It's actually pretty important that they have separate bars to clear. The criminal system has such a high bar as prison time of any length is inexcusable if you're wrong. So they should be taking all precautions possible to make sure no one is wrongly convicted, even if that does mean some people walk free.

The civil courts though? That's largely filled with "he said she said" situations. All of which would need to be thrown out if held to the same level of scrutiny. Judges need a bit more leeway to make sure things are fair, and the worst case scenario for the judge being wrong in those cases usually isn't life ending for the other person.

If you're suing in civil court, you need to prove there's a preponderance of guilt (they're at least 51% guilty). If it comes down to one said vs they said, the defendant will win 100% of the time. Have to have to some evidence.
Revelation34 posted...

It means he shouldn't have been been found guilty in the civil trial if he was already found not guilty. It was only allowed since double jeopardy doesn't apply to civil cases.

It just goes to show how bad the prosecution and officers botched the case. It was easy to prove their case against O.J. in the civil case, not just because the bar was lowered from beyond a reasonable doubt