Sep 14, 2010 -- 8:09PM, Guessses wrote:

Perhaps I should have explained. In the "Legal" courts, (perhaps I should have stated "criminal" courts), a person can not be tried for the same crime twice. In the case of O.J. Simpson versus the people if California, O.J. was found "Not Guilty" by a jury of his peers. However, the Civil Court then found him guilty of "Negligent homicide" and this I find the systems incompatible like Sharia law and the laws of the land.

The reason for the discrepancy is that the two systems use different standards of proof. A criminal prosecution must prove it's case "beyond reasonable doubt" i.e. it must prove that, barring truly outlandish coincidences, OJ (for example) did kill his wife. The evidence of Mark Fuhrman (and, to a lesser extent, some shoddy police work) introduced just enough room for doubt that the prosecution couldn't meet that burden of proof and, via presumption of innocence, OJ is then presumed to be not guilty.

Civil courts don't have to prove things "beyond reasonable doubt", they simply have to assess what the most likely scenario was. Thus, while a criminal court could not say that OJ did kill his wife, a civil court can say that was the most likely scenario and both courts can have made the correct decision on the evidence presented to them.

Sep 15, 2010 -- 9:06AM, Guessses wrote:

LOL, I'm not so the even "The Times" is so respectable. These days many "news sources" are crossing the line, faking photographs and pushing the hype (hype=crap)- because "hype" sells.

We have laws about things like faking photos over here. The Times is, AFAIK, the oldest newspaper in the English-speaking world and they guard their reputation for scrupulous objectivity to such an extent that the paper can actually be rather dry to read (I prefer the left-leaning Independent). Sure, they get hosed on occasion (the infamous "Hitler diaries" hoax being the most famous), that's an occupational hazard of being in the news business but they do make a strong effort to be led only by facts and they're the only national newspaper without a political agenda. British newspapers break down like this:

Broadsheets (top of the line, entirely respectable and trustworthy): The Times (very, very minor conservative lean but you'd have to be skilled in literary analysis to notice it), The Telegraph (centre-right lean, nicknamed the Tory-graph for that reason), The Guardian (centre-left, nicknamed the Groiniad for it's frequent printing errors), The Independent (mid-left, my paper of choice, often known as the Indie), Financial Times (think Wall Street Journal without the editorialising, traditionally printed on pink paper for some reason).

Mid-market (generally respectable but more prone to gossip and info-tainment stories, check their facts): Daily Express (mid-right, famously obsessed with the Royal Family and missing toddler Madeline McCann), Evening Standard (London based, have five editions through the day (their deadlines must be hell) which means you can often watch a story break and develop on their front page, vaguely left-leaning).

Tabloids (don't trust them to tell you what day it is, constantly getting sued by someone or other: Daily Mail (used to be a right-leaning mid-market paper until they plunged off the ultraright-fringe about eight years ago, now reads like something from the BNP, famously supported fascism in a big way during the Thirties and hasn't changed much), The Sun (was already off the ultraright fringe, home to naked women on Page 3 and horrifically bad sourcing, once simply made up a story about Liverpool FC fans urinating on the dead at soccer disaster Hillsborough and still doesn't sell anything in Liverpool for that reason), The Mirror (generally left-leaning but can veer right on issues like crime, journalism isn't quite as shoddy as The Sun's but it's close), Daily Star (newspaper length gossip column, sued even more frequently than other tabloids), Daily Sport (no noticeable political bias, lots of nude women and gossip, sports coverage is pretty good though), Morning Star (formerly outright Communist, now just socialist/radical left, print run is miniscule), News Of The World and The People (Sunday editions of the Sun and Mirror respectively).

We also have thousands of local papers, some of which are quite influential; about a dozen political satire weekly papers, Private Eye being very influential (and constantly sued, the editor likes to publish the legal threats he receives) and about another dozen weekly political analysis papers, of which, the most influential is (surprisingly) The Big Issue, a paper printed and sold by the homeless who keep 40% of it's selling price.

Sep 15, 2010 -- 12:22PM, Ebon wrote:

Sep 15, 2010 -- 11:57AM, Guessses wrote:

Of this, I understand. It still doesn't make it right.

I can understand that, there's a very human need to see someone punished for horrific crimes but we, as a society, decided long ago that it was more important to avoid jailing innocent people than to be sure of convicting guilty ones. If you or I were ever falsely accused (and it wouldn't be difficult to convince a jury of my guilt), those are the same precautions we'd be relying on.

In the case of Civil versus Criminal: The criminal courts already have the task to be "right", therefore the Civil court should NOT be able to "convict" on a crime the Criminal courts could not prove. And, there lies the conflict.