"The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals."

[Thorne]

Ah, but keep in mind civil, rather than criminal, liability.

Shame on the business owner who didn't ensure his air ducts would support the weight of the criminal robbing him in the night by crawling through the air conditioning system ... he must pay the medical bills.

Shame on the property owner who put up a barbed-wire fence, injuring the poor, misguided wretch who only wanted to steal enough to buy a bit of drugs (he's addicted and can't help himself, you know) ... pain and suffering damages awarded.

Shame on the homeowner who shot and killed the teenager who'd just broken through his door carrying a gun ... that poor boy's family is bereaved and deserves compensation.

Ahh, yes, all too true, I'm afraid. Part of the vagaries of the jury system. If that businessman had had jurors who were also businessmen, the outcome might have been different, I'm sure. But juries today feel that insurance companies will pay the costs anyway, so no harm done.

And I have yet to figure out how a person who was not criminally responsible for committing a crime could be held financially responsible. The OJ Simpson murder case comes to mind. If he was not guilty of killing the two people, how can he be held financially liable? Doesn't make sense to me.

And, of course, I can countersue the guy who damaged my barbed wire fence, forcing me to pay for biological clean up to remove his carelessly spilled blood, couldn't I?

Truth is, I don't know if any of those examples you noted would hold up on appeals.

[Ragoczy]

And I have yet to figure out how a person who was not criminally responsible for committing a crime could be held financially responsible. The OJ Simpson murder case comes to mind. If he was not guilty of killing the two people, how can he be held financially liable? Doesn't make sense to me.

It has to do with differing burdens of proof. You're not actually ever found innocent in a criminal case, simply "not guilty" due to the State's failure to meet its burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt".

In a civil matter, the burden of proof is "by a preponderance of the evidence".

So a criminal jury must have a significantly higher degree of certainty than a civil one.

[Ozme52]

And I have yet to figure out how a person who was not criminally responsible for committing a crime could be held financially responsible. The OJ Simpson murder case comes to mind. If he was not guilty of killing the two people, how can he be held financially liable? Doesn't make sense to me.

I railed against that too... and still do... regardless of whether or not he did the deed... but it is one of the many reasons we don't judge guilt or innocence... we judge guilty or not guilty.

And apparently, in this case, the semantics are everything.

Your peers must agree unaminously to judge you criminally guilty and must believe it beyond a reasonable doubt.

They must merely agree that there is a preponderance of evidence to judge you civily liable. (I'm not even sure it need be unaminous in all cases.)

[Thorne]

Ragoczy and Oz,

Thanks. You both gave similar responses, and I do understand the differences. That still doesn't mean it feels right. And I did not agree with the criminal trial's finding of Not Guilty, either. I'm sure there is a vast amount of legalese which would eventually boil down to some sort of semi-intelligent rational for this, but to my non-legal mind it still seems like double jeapordy.