Sparteye

This is all getting too much for me. Let me try to elucidate my confusion.

Firstly, as I see it, there are two separate issues:

1. What the law says and does
2. What our morality says and does.

As for 1., I understand that in US law (as in most) the presumption of innocence applies. Therefore, if someone achieves a verdict of Not Guilty in court, by law that person is presumed innocent? Remember I am only talking about the legal issue here. In this case, of course, there would be no need for a jury verdict of 'innocent' - that is presumed, and can only be overturned by a jury verdict of Guilty.

Next, from the point of view, IMO, of morality, rather than the law, if there is a civil suit, as per your example of the guy who ran off with my mortgage, the two issues are quite different. If he did not fulfil a contract - I have the right to sue him in the civil courts, and they will base their judgement (at least in the UK) upon a reasonable interpretation of the contract, and an examination of both parties' actions in the matter of that contract. If, on the other hand, he committed criminal offences, he should be prosecuted under those and (I don't know if this applies under UK law, but by heck it should) if found guilty, part of the sentencing should simply include restitution to the damaged parties. An extra civil case to establish this only clogs up the courts. Basically, your example seems to me to conflate two different issues - a civil issue (which has to do with contract law), and a criminal issue which would/should be prosecuted in any case. If one can be hauled to the courts twice, on the same matter, then to my mind it is a form of double jeopardy. If OJ was hauled to the courts twice for the same matter - the killing of Nicole - except that in one case the opposing lawyers sought money instead of criminal sanctions, then it appears to me that this is 'wrong'. If OJ had violated some contract he had engaged in with Nicole, and that was in dispute in the civil courts, then fair enough. If, on the other hand, as far as the courts were concerned he had to be presumed innocent of her murder, then a civil case based upon compensation for her murder should never have reached the courts.

At least, that's the state my muddled thinking has left me in. But do you see why I'm still going "but - but...">

cheer

the sunshine warrior