A Stitch in Haste

O.J. Simpson took a brief break from searching for the real killer to critique the American judicial system:

"I still don't get how anyone can be found not guilty of a murder and then be found responsible for it in any way shape or form," Simpson said in a phone interview from his Florida home. "... If you're found not guilty, how can you be found responsible? I'd love to hear how that's not double jeopardy."

Okay:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury; ... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb...

"Offence" is not the same as "tort," and "life or limb" is not the same as "checkbook." Any questions?

A finding by a jury in a criminal trial of "not guilty" is not the same as a finding of "innocent." You don't need to go to law school to know that -- a few episodes of "Law & Order," or even "Judge Judy," will do just fine.

There are far more interesting questions about double jeopardy than the kindergarten complaint of "criminal versus civil trials." A person can be tried for the same offense in multiple states, or at both the state and federal level. A person can be tried for both a crime and conspiracy to commit that crime. A convicted criminal can be both imprisoned and fined. A person (e.g., in the mafia) can be tried both for committing a crime and for participating in a "continuing criminal enterprise" (i.e., merely being in the "business" of committing crimes).

Double jeopardy is a powerful protection of individual liberty. But it is not a soapbox on which to whine about "miscarriages of justice."

Of course, there was indeed a miscarriage of justice in the O.J. Simpson criminal trial. And O.J. would be better off not reminding people of that.

Instead, he should stick to searching for the real killer...