Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Jason Simmons, post: 2912797, member: 8275"] Lodge was only convicted on one charge that is the NY analogous offence to the Australian offence of common assault. (Misdemeanour - reckless assault.) Plea deals are usually decided between Prosecutors and Defence after conferencing. The interests of justice are served by such a process where dubious charges are laid, or charges where the evidence is there, but isn’t necessarily compelling enough to ensure a guilty finding at trial beyond any reasonable doubt and where one or both parties wishes to expedite the matter. You are entitled to your opinion, but the analogous sentence to the US based offence Lodge was convicted of in Australia, without any particular issues effecting sentencing, is usually a $400 fine and a bit of a dressing down from the Magistrate... A particularly egregious common assault may see that fine lifted up to a $1000 or so and a severe dressing down... Considering that, Lodge was relatively heavily penalised for the offence he was actually convicted of. As Lodge didn’t answer the complaint, in NY an inquest is held where a judge determines whether the plaintiff’s case has merit and what damages should be applied. Such decisions can actually be vacated if Lodge wished to go back and challenge it, but I assume he doesn’t want to bother any more given the time it would likely take. So no jury of his peers was ever involved in deciding this matter. Furthermore civil cases regularly proceed after criminal matters are finalised at court. The reason is becase criminal matters rely on a standard of proof ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ whereas the civil standard of proof is on the ‘balance of probabilities.’ The obvious implication is that if you can prove someone guilty in a criminal proceeding a civil proceeding should be very straight forward. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 86 (members: 0, guests: 86)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now