| | |
|
AerinMillerSecondPaper 6 - 12 May 2010 - Main.AerinMiller
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Aerin-
I've added my revised version below your original. My two main goals in revising were: (1) to acknowledge and respond to the potential objection that a civil trial represents double jeopardy and (2) to weed out the aspects of the Simpson trial that made it unique and therefore not representative of domestic homicide trials, generally. I hope my input is helpful.
-Brook | >
> | Below is an amended draft which has incorporated some of Brook’s considerations (included in his own redraft, below). | | | Just Desserts: Intimate Homicide and the Civil Trial | | | In 1996, the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman filed a wrongful death and survivor action civil suit against O.J. Simpson, and they won. Compensatory and punitive damages were totaled at upwards of 30 million dollars, enough to put the heirs of the deceased right, at least monetarily speaking. But the genius of the civil suit was not the punitive damage award, which could hardly compensate the families for their loss. Instead, the suit forced on the defendant an unshakable label: killer. On appeal, O.J.’s defense team accepted the jury’s finding that he had killed decedents, arguing only that the trial court erred in presenting some evidence of prior domestic abuse, and decrying the damages. | |
<
< | The O.J. Simpson trials exemplify the indirect route by which the victims of intimate homicide (or their survivors) can seek retribution in the face of criminal systemic malfunction. The civil trial is well suited to provide an alternative remedy in “not guilty” intimate homicide cases, because of the difficulty of meeting the criminal burden of proof given the often closeted nature of the relationships in question. There is no substitute for incarceration – the (guilty) defendant’s access to his/her children, family or significant other following a successful criminal trial is disconcerting to say the least. In terms of justice for the deceased, however, the civil trial offers a second chance to set the record straight. | >
> | The O.J. Simpson trials exemplify the indirect route by which the victims of intimate homicide (or their survivors) can seek retribution in the face of criminal systemic malfunction. The civil trial is well suited to provide an alternative remedy in “not guilty” intimate homicide cases, because of the difficulty of meeting the criminal burden of proof given the often closeted nature of the relationships in question. There is no substitute for incarceration – the (guilty) defendant’s access to his/her children, family or significant other following a successful criminal trial is disconcerting to say the least. In terms of justice for the deceased, however, the civil trial offers a second chance to set the record straight. | | | II. Domestic Violence and Homicide | | | IV. The Civil Trial | |
<
< | A year later, however, O.J. was not so lucky. A civil suit following a criminal trial has the two major benefits of hindsight and a lower standard of proof. Unlike the first trial, these proceedings were not televised and lasted a mere four (as opposed to nine) months. The civil attorneys were more courteous and subdued than the Dream Team and moved though the motions at a clipped pace. Simpson himself was compelled to take the stand. The media was no longer preoccupied with the private lives of the actors – reporting was factual and brief. The trial jury and the appellate justices, free from the mayhem, needed consider only whether the evidence stacked above the 50% guilt line, and promptly affirmed that it did just that. | >
> | A year later, however, O.J. was not so lucky. A civil suit following a criminal trial has the two major benefits of hindsight and a lower standard of proof - per the 5th amendment, double jeopardy bars a second murder (or lesser crime) trial, but not a wrongful death/survivor action. Unlike the first trial, these proceedings were not televised and lasted a mere four (as opposed to nine) months. The civil attorneys were more courteous and subdued than the Dream Team and moved though the motions at a clipped pace. Simpson himself was compelled to take the stand. The media was no longer preoccupied with the private lives of the actors – reporting was factual and brief. The trial jury and the appellate justices, free from the mayhem, needed consider only whether the evidence stacked above the 50% guilt line, and promptly affirmed that it did just that. | | | V. A Comparison |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |