Civil Lawsuits
Civil lawsuits after criminal trials where the defendant is found not guilty is an abuse of justice in this country, doesn't work, and needs to be changed.
The most infamous case most people know about is the O. J. Simpson case, where he was found
not guilty of double murder, yet found liable for wrongful death by a jury that wasn't of his peers, and wasn't under the constraints of having to be unanimous. Not
only that, but then the jury awarded the plaintiffs an unheard of amount of $33 million, which Mr. Simpson would never have the means to pay with all the negative
notoriety the case garnered, and the plaintiffs now spend all of their time chasing him around the country, looking to squeeze any dollar out of him that they can.
The same thing happened after the Robert Blake trial, where he was found not guilty of murder of the mother
of his trial, but found guilty of wrongful death when the family sued afterwards and won an award of $30 million, which Mr. Blake also didn't have, and, at age 70, would
never have the opportunity to make again; he's filed bankruptcy. It would have happened again against
Kobe Bryant, after criminal charges of rape against him were dismissed, but he ended up
settling out of court with his accuser.
This wasn't the purpose of the civil lawsuit when it was first created. It had four main purposes at the time: compensating victims for injury as a result of
negligence; hold the party responsible for the injury liable; uphold the rights of the injured parties; and try to prevent that type of thing from occurring again.
The overall concept of civil lawsuits is a good one. Companies can not be allowed to put out products, knowing that they're a danger to the public, without the
possibility of retribution of some kind. And, if someone has been convicted of criminal action, suing for civil damages if that party has some financial means behind
them seems reasonable, especially since there's been legal confirmation that they were knowingly in the wrong.
But, whether we like the person being sued or not, we have to own up to their being no real justification for suing someone who's been acquitted of a crime. Criminal
courts can't ever touch that person again, unless the federal government feels that a trial wasn't conducted in a proper manner on the state level, such as the second
criminal trial of the police officers who beat Rodney King in California. What
makes it more right for citizens to be able to sue for damages, then win exorbitant and obscene amounts, when the best legal minds of the state couldn't prove that
a criminal defendant might have been guilty?
The civil law procedure needs to be revamped. Controls need to be put in place, because some of these decisions are a travesty of justice, and in a way downright
embarrassing. No one should ever be penalized for more than 50% of what they presently own, unless they have insurance to cover it; not even cigarette makers,
who I abhor. Lawyers should be limited to just how much they can earn off these lawsuits, whether it's a flat fee or a percentage amount, and their part should come
out of whatever the plaintiff gets, not off the top based on billable hours. And, it should be considered as double jeopardy if someone is acquitted in criminal court,
period.
Of course, I was once asked what if it were my family member who had been killed, as to whether I'd file a civil lawsuit or not. My answer was that it wouldn't
have been money I'd have wanted; enough said.
