Robert Blake not guilty, but he is liable

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Not to mention that the burden of proof is far less in this type of trial. It seems to me that having an identical set of standards would be ideal ... but what do I know?

I suppose if the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard were used for civil claims it might be too difficult for plaintiffs to prove valid claims. On the other hand, one wants the highest standard in criminal cases.

I'm sort of torn. On the one hand, it seems like double-dipping. On the other hand, this is one of the quirks of our system. If the prosecution thinks someone's guilty and can't get them on the "real" charge, they go for plan B: tax fraud, perjury, liability.