In one of the most notorious series of cases in American history, Orenthal James Simpson was acquitted of a double murder in a lengthy criminal trial while being held financially responsible for the deaths in two wrongful death civil actions. This apparent disparity in outcomes is largely attributed to the different standards of proof required in criminal v. civil cases. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard for criminal cases is juxtaposed against the preponderance of the evidence burden of proof in civil cases.
In your initial discussion:
Why do you think this is so?
Is the disparity reasonable and does it result in appropriate justice in the majority of the cases?