snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Police Blotter

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 29 August 2017, 06:45 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,537
Default

Arpaio's crime is misdemeanor contempt of court, which is part of why he couldn't get a jury trial. So I don't think it would help civil cases all that much since he wasn't convicted of violating anyone's civil rights.

OJ was charged with two capital crimes. I really don't see any parallels between the two cases.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 29 August 2017, 07:10 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 24,235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
Arpaio's crime is misdemeanor contempt of court, which is part of why he couldn't get a jury trial. So I don't think it would help civil cases all that much since he wasn't convicted of violating anyone's civil rights.
The ruling by Judge G Murray Snow (pdf) found that some of the practices of MCSO were violating the 4th and 6th Amendment rights of persons based on their race and ordered them to stop those practices. So he was legally informed by a valid authority that doing X was a violation of civil rights. The conviction for contempt of that order can show that he willfully continued those practices, thereby knowingly violating the civil rights of persons.

NAL
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 30 August 2017, 01:16 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 6,732
Mouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft View Post

Somebody please tell me that Allen Funt is just waiting for the right time to come out of hiding.
If he does, someone tell Allen Funt that there is such a thing as running a joke into the ground. Though he may be too busy guzzling straight from the bottle and sobbing. I understand, Zombie Allen Funt. Maybe I don't share your desire for brains, but I understand the drinking and sobbing.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 30 August 2017, 01:27 AM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 7,386
Skull

Quote:
Somebody please tell me that Allen Funt is just waiting for the right time to come out of hiding.
Quote:
I understand, Zombie Allen Funt.
He'd have to be a Zombie. Allen Funt died in 1999.

~Psihala
(*Not sure a zombie apocalypse would necessarily be a good sign...)
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 30 August 2017, 05:22 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,348
Default

Pffft. Faking his death was obviously part of the prank.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 30 August 2017, 05:26 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,348
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
Arpaio's crime is misdemeanor contempt of court, which is part of why he couldn't get a jury trial. So I don't think it would help civil cases all that much since he wasn't convicted of violating anyone's civil rights.

OJ was charged with two capital crimes. I really don't see any parallels between the two cases.
The only 'parallel' that was being pointed out is that while OJ was found not guilty of criminal charges, he was still held liable for civil damages in a separate lawsuit. (This always seemed wrong to me, frankly, but it has to do with the different standard of proof involved: for a guilty verdict you need to be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt," whereas a civil suit can go against you if the "preponderance of the evidence" indicates your culpability.)

No comparison was intended between the actual crimes. Apario is, after all, probably responsible for many more deaths, in a moral if not a criminal sense.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 13 September 2017, 07:58 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,348
Default Trumpís Revenge

The pardon of Joe Arpaio is revolting for many reasons. Most disgusting of all is that Trump did it to torment anyone who doesnít support him.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...t_revenge.html
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 13 September 2017, 11:58 PM
diddy's Avatar
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,882
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft View Post
(This always seemed wrong to me, frankly, but it has to do with the different standard of proof involved: for a guilty verdict you need to be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt," whereas a civil suit can go against you if the "preponderance of the evidence" indicates your culpability.)
Why would it be wrong? Civil court and Criminal Court are two different beasts with different parties going after you. You don't even have to talk about a criminal trial in a civil one. Yes, they can cover similar topics, but they are legally different. Nuance is big in court.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 14 September 2017, 02:19 AM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,348
Default

I know, but it seems odd: first you say I didn't do it; now you say I'm responsible?

The confusion, of course, comes from equating "not guilty" with "innocent." A not guilty verdict doesn't mean you didn't do it; it means the prosecution did not offer sufficient evidence ti prove you did it, beyond a reasonable doubt. (In point of fact, one of the juries I've served on was a good example of that; the defendant was accused of damaging someone's property. None of us were at all sure he didn't do it, but none of us felt sure that he had, based on the evidence; our doubts were based on different reasons, but we all had them. If the case had been a civil suit to make him pay for the damage, rather than a criminal prosecution, it might well have turned out differently.)
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 14 September 2017, 04:39 AM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,452
Default

Exactly. The (mostly made-up) numbers I give my clients when explaining this distinction are 51 and 99 percent. If you are found to be at least 51% likely to have done it, you'll lose in civil court, but if the judge or jury is less than 99% certain you did it, you should be acquitted in criminal court. There are also sometimes different evidentiary standards such that an incriminating email or video might be admissible in a civil case but not a criminal one. Also, many reprehensible acts fall just short of what is criminalized, so even if two courts agree on exactly what you did (or failed to do), there may be tort liability but no crime.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 14 September 2017, 01:13 PM
ChasFink's Avatar
ChasFink ChasFink is offline
 
Join Date: 09 December 2015
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 349
Judge

But this is what I think is not only confusing, but nonsensical to people. Why is the standard different in criminal and civil courts, especially when it comes to responsibility for death and other very serious things? Why is it the government can't punish me for an act they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but an individual can punish me (usually only financially, but sometimes severely) based on a 51/49 preponderance of evidence?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 14 September 2017, 01:45 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 73,214
Default

IANAL, and I'll be interested in hearing Esprise Me's response. But criminal and civil courts serve different purposes, and although some crimes may result in a civil suit, AIUI that's the exception: most civil cases don't involve anything that could be prosecuted as a crime.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 14 September 2017, 02:09 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,360
Glasses

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasFink View Post
Why is it the government can't punish me for an act they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but an individual can punish me (usually only financially, but sometimes severely) based on a 51/49 preponderance of evidence?
Because when these differences were established, the government could take your life away from you, while the individual could only take your money. You can get money back. You can't get your life back once it's gone.

Seaboe
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 14 September 2017, 02:22 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 7,763
Default

I think it's got to do with the fact that in a criminal case the penalties can involve jail or even death. In a civil case they can't be more than financial. It's true that sufficiently heavy financial penalties can screw up one's life; but I expect the idea is that they can't do so nearly as much as being imprisoned or killed. A higher standard of proof is required to take somebody away from family, friends, cats, access to the outdoors, etc. and lock them up in a noisy box with occasional strip-searches thrown in, than in order to take some of their money away.

And it's my understanding that actually claiming such penalties from someone who can't afford them is difficult.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 14 September 2017, 02:36 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 24,235
Default

It may also have to do with the fact that a criminal trial (especially at the time the rules were codified) was very much a David vs Goliath contest. The resources that the state can bring could massively overwhelm a defendant. A plaintiff would generally not have the effectively unlimited resources that the state.

Plus, since the motivation for a criminal trial is not monetary, there would be no economic-derived limit to how much the state would spend. The state can easily (and logically in some cases) spend $1,000 to prosecute a crime of $100. But a plaintiff suing for $10,000 would probably not spend $12,000 on a case (except for pride or to make a point).
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 14 September 2017, 02:45 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,356
Default

Good points have already been made, and Seaboe already referred to this point, perhaps, but one thing to remember is that when the common law system was developing, all felonies were punishable by death.

Under the modern system, the government interfering with one's liberty, and the stigma of a criminal conviction tend.to be viewed as graver consequences than a civil money damages award.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 14 September 2017, 04:18 PM
RichardM RichardM is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2004
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 3,882
Default

Didn't somebody above mention that by accepting the pardon, Arpaio is admitting that he is guilty. Does that mean that he and the department can now be sued for damages?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 14 September 2017, 09:42 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,537
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardM View Post
Didn't somebody above mention that by accepting the pardon, Arpaio is admitting that he is guilty. Does that mean that he and the department can now be sued for damages?
Not only admitting guilt but he also looses the ability to appeal the conviction.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 14 September 2017, 10:06 PM
Plurabelle's Avatar
Plurabelle Plurabelle is offline
 
Join Date: 29 September 2003
Location: Brussels, Belgium (home base: Ann Arbor, MI)
Posts: 917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
Not only admitting guilt but he also looses the ability to appeal the conviction.
Except now he's suing to have the conviction dismissed, entirely, and has our Justice department behind him.

Blagh.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 15 September 2017, 01:32 PM
ChasFink's Avatar
ChasFink ChasFink is offline
 
Join Date: 09 December 2015
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 349
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plurabelle View Post
Except now he's suing to have the conviction dismissed, entirely, and has our Justice department behind him.

Blagh.
His argument seems to be "I didn't want a pardon." But doesn't one need to accept a pardon? And if he must truly admit guilt to accept the pardon, I can't see how any competent system would allow this. It's exactly like having your cake and eating it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Federal judge strikes down gay-marriage ban in Alabama snopes Moot Court 18 30 September 2016 11:00 PM
Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas Gay Marriage Ban CenTex Soapbox Derby 0 26 February 2014 07:14 PM
Judge rules against 'America's toughest sheriff' in racial profiling lawsuit Amigone201 Moot Court 5 26 May 2013 02:49 AM
Judge holds self in contempt for his smartphone Psihala Moot Court 9 20 April 2013 02:39 PM
Federal judge who sent racist Obama email says he will retire snopes Soapbox Derby 0 04 April 2013 03:40 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.