Victim's rights and civil vs. criminal courts

In 1997, the parents of Ron Goldman, Fred Goldman and Sharon Rufo, brought suit against O.J. Simpson for wrongful death after the criminal trial had failed. They won $33.5 million dollars. If Simpson was convicted in his criminal trial, it is unlikely the families would receive close to that amount.

There are a few other issues: if the families have a right to be compensated, why is the burden on them to pay lawyers and fight their case in court rather then having that right protected by the state? Had Simpson not been a multi-millionaire, the families would have likely receive nothing despite the act (murder) being the same. And most important of all, after the civil trial, the California government now holds two contradictory beliefs, Simpson is not guilty of murder but liable for wrongful death.

Does anyone have a better idea for compensating victims and their families? Some states compensate victims at the state's expense, is this a just compensation for the failure to protect them from criminal acts? And what about when criminal courts and civil courts contradict each other on the same set of facts? should criminal and civil trials be combined? Should those acquitted in criminal court be granted civil immunity and vice versa?

Post 1

Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - 10:11pm

Tort law is very old. It can be found in ancient Rome. It has been a way to make right a wrong by using monetary compensation. That's the big difference from criminal law where the court establishes the existence of a crime and punishes the criminal on behalf of the state.

Tort law, like most civil law, is intended to prevent the taking of justice into private hands. It makes feuding less likely. There is a need for both civil and criminal law... with their different focuses, different purposes and differnt players. Even when the same act (e.g., a murder) can be the subject of both tort law and criminal law it is best to hold them separate.

In civil law, the damages sued for can also include legal costs, to answer one of Liam's questions. So, if someone can prove their damages, they can be paid and not have to bear the expense of the lawyers. But if they can't, then the unfairly sued person isn't paying his opponents legal fees (that's the way it is hoped it will work). As to why the people should have seek out lawyers and initiate the suite... that is because the prosecuter's job isn't to look to see who might be damaged, determine how much they might be damaged, and add to his primary job of securing a criminal conviction. In criminal court, the burden of getting a jury to try the facts of a criminal law violation is enough, without also asking them to determine the amount of damage and to affirm the amount of monetary recompense.

Because of the danger to liberty when a government goes amok in criminal court and puts innocent people in jail, as a check on government abuse, the burden of proof is set quite high ("Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"). But when two parties are contesting a civil issue (contract or tort for example) it is a totally different burden of proof - they only need "A Preponderance of the Evidence."

Courts are purposefully intended to be adversarial as the best means of having vigorous jousting by self-interested parties as the way to get closest to the facts. That means they will be driven by the 'adversaries' - and in criminal court it is the state versus the defendant. While in civil court it is two private parties (even if one is a government agency or public organization) - each equal under the law and each attempting to serve their own ends.

It used to be (but appears to have changed) that civil court's purpose was to make the damaged party whole again (no more, no less). That's different from being punitive. Nowadays, tort lawyers tell the jury to "send a message" or to recognize outlandish claims of emotional distress and get real punitive. But that once was solely the preserve of the criminal court... to punish.

In the case of the Goldmans, it would be hard to say that they had a "right" to $35 million dollars until a civil court's jury heard the case, weighed the claims, and came up with (or accepted) that amount. I say this, because this "right" isn't a universal right but a unique legal right (legal claim against O. J. Simpson) established by a court. That's very different from a legal right that exists for everyone who is an American citizen due to our statuatory law, and also very different from an individual moral right derived from human nature and common to all humans. This means that they did not have any such right until they established that claim against Simpson with a successful Tort trial.

Most of the time just compensation isn't even possible. When someone is killed, they are the victim and are beyond compensation. When a thug assaults someone on the street, that thug, even if found guilty in criminal court, and even is successfully sued in civil court may not have a dime to their name. And money doesn't always adequately make a victim whole again.

Government's should never compensate victims at taxpayer expense. No government can ever protect everyone for all criminal attacks. That isn't possible. What they can, and should, do is to create that most effective environment for individual rights. Most of the time that will be by catching criminals after the fact and engaging in retaliatory force (locking the crooks up). Giving money to the victim is either from civil court, or from private charity. No one has a right to the taxpayer's money for being a victim.

Post 2

Thursday, October 1, 2015 - 9:31am

Tort law, like most civil law, is intended to prevent the taking of justice into private hands. It makes feuding less likely. There is a need for both civil and criminal law... with their different focuses, different purposes and different players. Even when the same act (e.g., a murder) can be the subject of both tort law and criminal law it is best to hold them separate.

They can be separate (criminal and civil trials), but can they be contradictory? Is the prohibition of double jeopardy violated this way?

In civil law, the damages sued for can also include legal costs, to answer one of Liam's questions. So, if someone can prove their damages, they can be paid and not have to bear the expense of the lawyers. But if they can't, then the unfairly sued person isn't paying his opponents legal fees (that's the way it is hoped it will work). As to why the people should have seek out lawyers and initiate the suite... that is because the prosecutor's job isn't to look to see who might be damaged, determine how much they might be damaged, and add to his primary job of securing a criminal conviction. In criminal court, the burden of getting a jury to try the facts of a criminal law violation is enough, without also asking them to determine the amount of damage and to affirm the amount of monetary recompense.

But what if the victim's families couldn't afford lawyers in the first place? In the O.J. Simpson trial, lawyers might agree to be payed after the trial, but what about in other cases? People can legally represent themselves, but the courts have made that almost impossible in complicated law suits. Some kind of legal aid or assistance should be provided by the courts (to both parties) to guarentee rights are protected in a civil trial. And on the issue of separate trials, I don't see how in one trial a jury couldn't decide criminal guilt as argued by a prosecutor and civil liability as argued by the families lawyers, being presented the same set of facts and testimony.

The Goldman's right to be compensated steams from Ronald Goldman's right to his own life and the family's right to be made whole from their loss from the violation of that right. Every person must have the right to be made whole from the violation of rights, even from damages due to the violation of another individual's rights. If property is taken away from you, do you not have the right to be compensated? Your life belonging to you, you should also have the right to compensation, but you're dead so that claim must be passed on to someone else (wife, family etc.). Not everybody has the right to $35 million dollars from O.J. Simpson, but that is only a specific context of the right to be compensated. The family's right to be compensated existed at the moment Ronald Goldman was killed, the civil trail was simply a legal mechanism to act on that right and to determine the proper amount of compensation. Freedom of speech doesn't come into existence the moment you walk into the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is just a mechanism of the government devoted to protecting rights.

(Edited by Liam Joseph Thornback on 10/01, 9:38am)

Post 3

Thursday, October 1, 2015 - 11:38am

They can be separate (criminal and civil trials), but can they be contradictory?

Yes, because as you pointed out, that's what happened in the O. J. trial. It is only possible for those acts that are are criminal AND can be taken into civil court. The biggest reason for contradictory outcomes, and it was the case in the O. J. trial, is the different standards of evidence. But there could also a difference in the quality of the legal advocacy, or a difference in the quality of the judges, or in the difference in the makeup of the juries. We should shoot for the best system, but recognize that calls for a 'perfect system' are usually a waste of time and involve 'fixing' details that actually take one away from the key purposes involved.
-------------

Is the prohibition of double jeopardy violated this way?

Technically? No. In principle? Maybe... in some cases. If you define "double jeopardy" as the state having no legal right to try a person twice for the same offense, then the answer is no, because the state isn't pursuing a second criminal trial. And the civil trial won't (and can't) produce a criminal sentence. It just tries to return a person to where they were before the harmful event. For example, a guy breaks into your house and steals some stuff. The cops catch him and convict him. But you didn't get your stuff back. You still have the legal right to sue him for the value of what was stolen. I wouldn't see this as a form of double jeopardy.
-------------

Some kind of legal aid or assistance should be provided by the courts (to both parties) to guarentee rights are protected in a civil trial.

We disagree. I don't believe that it is proper to take money away from some people to give it to others on the basis of need. It doesn't matter that those poor people as in need of money to pursue a legal goal as opposed to buying food or paying rent or getting medical care. Their need does not constitute a legitimate claim on the money that belongs to others.
--------------

I don't see how in one trial a jury couldn't decide criminal guilt as argued by a prosecutor and civil liability as argued by the families lawyers, being presented the same set of facts and testimony.

There is a good reason to have different standards involved ("beyond a reasonable doubt" and "a preponderance of the evidence") and there is a good reason for having a separate case when you have separate adversaries and separate purposes. We disagree on that.
---------------

Not everybody has the right to $35 million dollars from O.J. Simpson, but that is only a specific context of the right to be compensated. The family's right to be compensated existed at the moment Ronald Goldman was killed, the civil trail was simply a legal mechanism to act on that right and to determine the proper amount of compensation.

What I said was that there was no legal right to O. J. Simpson's money till it was established by the court. That is why the civil trial was needed.... not just to establish an amount, but to determine that they had a right to anything at all. And I pointed out that this is a derivitive right specific to the case as opposed to a universal moral or legal right.
----------------

Your life belonging to you, you should also have the right to compensation, but you're dead so that claim must be passed on to someone else (wife, family etc.).

Nope, there is a problem with that formulation.

A right is always about an action that you can take without anyone's permission. When that action is breached by another (the violation of your right) that does not automatically confer some kind privilege to some third party. To put it into specific terms, in the O. J. Simpson example, what Ronald Coleman lost, and what his parents lost were different. Ronald Coleman lost his life. What his parents lost, if anything, has to be established in a court of law. It has to be something that they had rightful ownership to in the first place. We know that they did not own their son's life (which is what disappeared), so they have to show what was taken from them that they did have some kind of ownership in (his future companionship, etc.)

Here is a made-up example. If you and I were neighbors and I often would loan you my lawnmower but a thief stole it, could you sue the thief for the value of that frequent use of my lawnmower which you lost? You could sue, but you shouldn't be able to win. Because you didn't have 'rights' (ownership) in the lawnmower. But if our arrangement was that you had given me money, in advance, to use that lawnmower, now you have rights in its use (ownership) and you could sue (me and the thief).
------------------

Freedom of speech doesn't come into existence the moment you walk into the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is just a mechanism of the government devoted to protecting rights.

Yes but there is more to this. Yes, freedom of speech exists both as a legal and a moral right before a case makes its way to the court. That's true. And it is true that the Supreme court is a mechanism of the government for protecting rights. BUT, the court protects rights in specific instances by examining the facts to be sure that defined rights are involved, and are being violated. If not, they throw the case out. In other words, yes, the right of freedom of speech does exists before some specific comes before the court, but it might not apply to the specific person in the specific case.

If a person said to another, in all seriousness, "I'll pay you $10,000 to kill my wife," and then tried to claim freedom from prosecution by saying it was just speech and therefore free, the court might say, your speech WAS free. Your prosecution is for solicitation of murder. Those are two separate acts. If you had said you would pay to have your wife killed while doing stand-up comedy, or as a complaint to a friend it would have been different. You are only being tried on the act that is conspiring to take the life of another - the fact that you used speech to do that doesn't erase the object of the conspiracy.

Post 4

Thursday, October 1, 2015 - 3:22pm

Steve,

You pretty much straitened out my question regarding double jeopardy. Two different standards of evidence can create two different outcomes with the same facts. In the case of O.J. Simpson, I would be in favor of a second criminal trial, after the civil liability has been established, to try and correct the contradiction. An exception of this kind to the double jeopardy rule would be justified, as it still puts a great limit on the state's power to abusively prosecute.

However, regarding compensation and legal aid you said,

and,

I don't believe that it is proper to take money away from some people to give it to others on the basis of need. It doesn't matter that those poor people as in need of money to pursue a legal goal as opposed to buying food or paying rent or getting medical care. Their need does not constitute a legitimate claim on the money that belongs to others.

Being against any form of coercive taxation, I would have to agree. However, if government was funded voluntarily (or by some sort of citizenship fee) then it may be more efficient to fund legal aid and compensation through the state then through private charity. Also look at it this way, if it is wrong to force people to pay for compensation to victims and for legal aid, why is it not wrong to force people to pay for the police and the courts altogether?

Then you address the legal claims of the families and the victim's right to life,

When someone dies, their possessions pass on to their family or to others named in their will. As part of someone's possessions, legal claims must be included. If I violated the copyright on Mickey Mouse, I can be sued even though Walt Disney is dead, because his legal claims passed on to his estate (and in his case, to the Disney corporation). Even if I committed a copyright offense before Walt Disney died and was not brought to court until after he died, I would still be liable. Ronald Goldman right to his life was violated by O.J. Simpson, and therefor he would have a legal claim against Simpson. Ron Goldman being dead, his legal claim passed on to his estate (having no children or wife, that was his parents). No, Goldman's parents do not own his life, but they did inherit his legal claim.

Forgive me, but your lawnmower example has nothing to do with anything. First of all your not dead, so the burden to sue the thief rests on you. Second of all, even if you were dead I'm not your legal heir, so no legal claims could be transferred to me. And finally, I am not talking about who owns the lawnmower, or Ron Goldman's life, but who owns the legal claim against the criminal.

(Edited by Liam Joseph Thornback on 10/01, 3:24pm)

Post 5

Thursday, October 1, 2015 - 4:23pm

...if it is wrong to force people to pay for compensation to victims and for legal aid, why is it not wrong to force people to pay for the police and the courts altogether?

There are good reasons why the compensation and legal aid should not be included as part of the government supplied packages of police and courts:

The purpose of government is to create the optimum environment for individual rights to flourish. This means making the initiation of force, threat to initiate force, theft and fraud illegal. And providing the minimun number of laws, structures, government and taxes (if any - I believe that this size government can be supported without any taxes at tall) to satisfy that purpose.

Automatic ompensation paid by the government, to the victim of a crime would mean the taxpayer, who wasn't guilty of that crime, would be paying for it, and that's wrong.

The other way to get compensated is for a victim to sue and try to get money from the wrong-doer. This is fine as long as this goal of theirs, which would pay them, is supported by their efforts and their money. The government's job ended with trying the criminal and carrying out the sentence and then making the civil court available.

This pursuit of compensation comes out of the mind of the victim who is in control of what they think they are owed and what they will settle for and how much they are willing to pay for legal services, and how long they will engage in such a pursuit. Some guy might be so upset with his next-door neighbor for cutting down a tree he thinks is his, that even after the criminal court fined his neighbor for a misdemeanor, he wants to sue him for $10,000,000 and he wants Johnny Cochran to be his lawyer, and he is willing to pursue his case to the Supreme Court. Does anyone think that it is fair to have the taxpayers go along with that? If not, What are the alternatives?

To give a budgeted, pre-determined amount per type of case? That would be a very complex determination and would still be far more than fair for some and far too little for others. Or, do we just treat it as "single-payor" legal services? If you have a tort, and you think you deserve compensation for harm done to you, then you get to sue to your hearts delight and the taxpayers foot the bill. Do we turn it over to the DA that prosecutes the criminal side of the action? Then what about when they decline to proscute, or settle out of court, or don't pursue it the way the injured party wants them to?

The practical problems of going down this path are far larger than the alledged benefits - especially when the problems with the current system are nearly non-existent.
----------------

Individual moral rights - the moral basis of legal rights - the only proper standard for examining whether any particular government action or expense is proper - does not include taxing people to provide civil suit legal fees for people who want to sue (or to those getting sued). The fact that some people can't afford to file civil suites doesn't amount to a justification for taking money away from others to pay for it. Some people don't have enough money to eat, but that is a call for private charity, but not government redistribution.

Individual rights are universal. When everyone in American is served by the safety given by our miitary, and the environment created by good criminal laws and police, and have access to civil courts and civil laws, then we are all served equally. When you pay for one individual's attempt to gain compensation by taking money away from others, you are violating that principle.

--------------

Ronald Goldman right to his life was violated by O.J. Simpson, and therefor he would have a legal claim against Simpson. Ron Goldman being dead, his legal claim passed on to his estate (having no children or wife, that was his parents). No, Goldman's parents do not own his life, but they did inherit his legal claim.

Some legal claims do not survive the death of the person who holds that legal claim. What you are doing is somewhat like the person who killed his parents then asking the court for mercy because he is an orphan. There was NO Ronald Goldman left around to have a claim against Simpson for murdering him. And it isn't something inside the estate of Goldman that was inherited by his parents that was pressed as what was owed them. The fact is that the jury gave the Goldmans a huge settlement not over ownership, but because they felt O.J. got away with murder and they wanted to punish him. If your logic was followed, the court would have to establish what would be inside of Ronald Goldman's estate as a valid monetary claim against Simpson and then ensure that the parents were the proper heirs, and make that as the judgment.
-------------------

I'm sorry you didn't follow the lawnmower example because it does apply. It isn't only about death or inheritance - to think so is to take a mistakenly narrow view. It is about a loss that is believed to fall under tort law and how to resolve whether one has standing (suffers a loss due to what is claimed to be a tortuous event).
--------------------

Liam, I'm not interested in pursuing this any further. You have your views and I have mine and this level of detail in Tort law doesn't interest me very much, and I don't feel like all of my arguments are registering with you, and we aren't making any headway.

Best Wishes,
Steve

Post 6

Thursday, October 1, 2015 - 6:09pm

Even though Steve expresses no interest in continuing the conversation, I still want respond to his last post for the record and for any other readers:

Firstly, I'm sorry if anyone misunderstood me for supporting unlimited legal aid for every lawsuit that comes before the courts. Steve made it very clear what is wrong with that idea. I am also opposed to prosecutors having unlimited power to spend public dollars on criminal trials (as most people are). Just as a grand juries and pre-trial hearings put a limit on criminal prosecutions at the public's expense, I don't see why a grand jury could not approve government funds for an important civil case when the evidence is very good. One could argue as Steve did, that that is just appealing to one's needs and not to one's rights. I would argue It might do some good to protect individual rights, if it is well regulated. But that argument is pretty much over for this thread.

And regarding victim's compensation, Steve said,

When you pay for one individual's attempt to gain compensation by taking money away from others, you are violating that principle.

Even though I made it clear I was advocating no such thing. In fact, I wasn't even advocating any government compensation, I was just raising it as a subject of discussion.

Steve then goes on regarding his views on the rights of the Goldman family:

Some legal claims do not survive the death of the person who holds that legal claim.

Why is that? Steve may have some deeper understanding of that then me, because I don't see the sense in that. Maybe I just have to learn more about civil law. If I defraud someone in a contract, but then murder him before he can sue, should I be free from my civil liability?

There was NO Ronald Goldman left around to have a claim against Simpson for murdering him. And it isn't something inside the estate of Goldman that was inherited by his parents that was pressed as what was owed them.

When someone dies without a will, there estate still falls to someone. Just because Ron Goldman didn't have a will transferring his claim against Simpson to his parents (which would be impossible anyways), it doesn't mean that claim shouldn't be transferred.

The fact is that the jury gave the Goldmans a huge settlement not over ownership, but because they felt O.J. got away with murder and they wanted to punish him.

I'm not interested it why the jury did what it did or even the current laws regarding these cases, but what ought to have happened in the civil trial if we had a just legal system.

If your logic was followed, the court would have to establish what would be inside of Ronald Goldman's estate as a valid monetary claim against Simpson and then ensure that the parents were the proper heirs, and make that as the judgment.

I don't see what would be so difficult In a judgment like that. That seems to be a very simple inheritance case.

Nothing to do with anything may have been too strong. However, I wasn't concerned with the loss of companionship that the Goldman family suffered, but with the loss of life Simpson is liable for. There was nothing misunderstood or wrong with Steve's example, It just didn't address the issue I was concerned with. In fact, I might agree that no one can really be compensated for the loss of someone else's property (I believe the exception is when the legal claim is transferred to you).

I would like to say thanks to Steve for engaging me on this issue, for making intelligent points, and for making me at the very least rethink civil trials (which I admit I have little practical knowledge of).

Post 7

Thursday, October 1, 2015 - 8:01pm