WSJ letter to the editor
Monday
LETTERS | July 21, 2013, 3:30 p.m. ET
The Zimmerman Verdict and the Broader Perspective
Zimmerman verdict shows our system working as designed.
Regarding your editorial "The Zimmerman Verdict" (July 15): The outcry over the Zimmerman not-guilty verdict reveals the general public's ignorance of the U.S. criminal justice system. A guilty verdict means the government presented evidence against the defendant proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A not-guilty verdict means the evidence could have been 70% to 85% against the defendant, but still subject to a reasonable doubt. To win a civil damages case the party bringing the suit need only present a weight or preponderance of evidence, meaning 51% or greater, to prevail.
Trayvon Martin's family could very well sue Mr. Zimmerman in civil court and win a damages award under the lower "weight of evidence" standard of proof. O.J. Simpson's victims did just that and won big. Whether they actually collected anything is another matter. Despite having sat through civics classes in high school and perhaps American government in college, Americans still naively view the criminal justice system as a "High Noon" good versus evil shootout, which it is not and never was, but still is the best in the world.
David P. Carter
Seminole, Fla.
A version of this article appeared July 22, 2013, on page A16 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Zimmerman Verdict and the Broader Perspective. |
