I have no interest one way or another in the result here, but HOW it happens does irritate me. Frankly, I think the whole US Court system is a load of horse manure. You think you won a case, but NO.... someone overturns it...and overturns it again and again and again and again.... WTF!?!? In criminal cases where you've won your innocence, that's called DOUBLE JEOPARDY and it's illegal (as it should be).
In a criminal court, whether you lose or win, both the prosecution and the defendant can appeal. There have even been cases where both sides appealed (prosecution thinking the sentence wasn't high enough, defendant claiming their innocence). It's not double jeopardy and quite common.
Same here; after a court case you can appeal and it goes to the next higher level (if it is accepted by the higher court). Usually the case will only be accepted if the next higher judge decides that a clear error was made.
----------
You're only describing what is different. It's pointless. I already know that. Your explanation for having less severe standards for civil court boils down to "it's only money" and that's ridiculous when a lack of money can RUIN a person's life. I fail to see why civil court cases should be allowed to ping-pong while criminal cases end when a person is found innocent.
In civil cases there's often the situation that damage has happened, and the question is who pays for it. Let's say a car accident happened, I say it was your fault, you say it was my fault, but obviously one of us (or both) has to pay for the damage. The judge can't say "you're both innocent" because the damage is done and it won't get repaired if nobody comes up with the money.
Or let's say I claim that my neighbour intentionally caused major damage to my house. If that is true, he should pay for the damage and go to jail. As far as the paying for the damage is concerned, if you apply "not paying unless proven guilty" to my neighbour, that applies "paying unless proven innocent" to me. Which I would consider highly unfair. The damage caused could also ruin the victims life.
As far as OJ Simpson is concerned, a civil court had to decide whether it was more likely that he murdered two people, and the civil court said "yes". That's quite a strong statement, and not made lightly. The wrong decision wouldn't just mean that the guilty person goes free, it also means that the victim isn't compensated for their damage. There isn't just one side here, there are two, and for each side the wrong decision means financial damage, so it is just that the court decides what is more likely to be correct.
Apart from that, OJ Simpson moved to Florida after being convicted because the Florida laws allowed him to have a good life without paying a penny of the 10 million dollar compensation that he was ordered to pay. As a result, when he wrote his biography and tried to sell the rights, the murdered man's parents outbid everyone else and bought the rights for several million dollars - which they then subtracted from the money they were owed.
