Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
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.)