Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (46887)	5/8/2002 8:25:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Double jeopardy only applies to actions brought by the State. The state can't try you twice for the same crime. Jeopardy means in jeopardy of the state taking your life, time, or property (fines). The victim isn't a party to that action. If you run a fraud which defrauds twenty separate people, even if the state doesn't try you for a crime, you can be civilly sued separately by each of the the people you defrauded, even though all you might have done would be to put one false report out on the internet once. A single act, twenty suits. But that's not twenty-fold jeopardy. Where the double jeopardy concept bothers me is when a person is tried by the state and found not guilty, but then the federal government steps in and charges them for the same action. That's allowed, but I don't think it should be.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (46887)	5/8/2002 8:30:02 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

One other point: I think one reason you're seeing more of these is that we're seeing more wealthy criminals who make going after them civilly worth it. If the person has nothing, there's nothing to sue for. But it has been fairly frequent in, for example, drunk driving cases where a person is injured, for the state to charge the driver, and the injured person to sue the driver. You don't hear much about them because the insurance company pays the injured person on behalf of the driver. But do you really think that if a drunk driver mows you down in a parking lot, you shouldn't have a right to sue them for your injuries because the State charged them with drunk driving? That's what you're suggesting. And no, the State doesn't always worry about getting you full, if any, compensation. The insurance company isn't a party to the criminal action, so even if the state orders the driver to pay you damages, the inurance company may not pay that because it's the result of a criminal act. But they WILL pay you if you sue for your injuries.