quote:
Just to picky - and I want to learn something new today - was he convicted or found liable? In a civil case in the US, can one be found guilty? Was this just a slip-up (we all make them) or am I missing something?
I used the term "conviction" to mean "the final judgment on a verdict" (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition), and I apologize for using the term so loosely. However, it does appear that its intended meaning was received in that OJ was indeed retried on the same facts and found culpable for the deaths by a Jury Verdict, contrary to Crashfrog's assertion. The civil verdict certainly didn't put the rubber stamp of approval on "murder", although I believe the victim's families felt some sort of vindication and considered the verdict a public recognition of his guilt. Many others do as well, notwithstanding the highly technical legal jargon.
I would also agree that the term "conviction" is mostly reserved for criminal cases, but can also apply to civil cases. For example, civil traffic infractions (speeding) can often result in convictions, and adjudications of guilt appearing on your driving record.
Whether in the U.S. one can be found "guilty" in a civil case in any of the 50 States is an interesting question and one I simply don't know the answer to if you mean something other than civil traffic infractions. To that end, one would have to obtain the 50 copies of the authorized verdict forms issued by the Supreme Court of each State (also Federal Verdict Forms) and/or Judgment and Sentence forms and then analyze the language. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one official verdict form or Judgment and Sentence contained the word "conviction", which may be technically erroneous as you pointed out, and I wouldn't be surprised if the same forms did not include the objectionable language.
Sometimes words are chosen simply to convey a meaning most efficiently. The term "settlement" is another one that can be utilized in both the civil and criminal arenas. Although, in technical legal jargon, "settlement" only applies in the context of a civil action, but a murderer that pled to manslaughter might indeed have good cause to believe he obtained a favorable "settlement" on the case. I would even use the term "settlement" for the purpose of explaining the concepts better. And I wouldn't care if I was technically incorrect so long as my client understood my message in the language most familiar to him.
I forgot you sat on a jury once. But the average joe most likely would be unfamiliar with the subtle distinctions.
"Given an arbitrary set of parameters"
Parameters are clearly defined, you'll have to explain your point better.
'the legal system does a good job, to my mind, of judging the application of scientific evidence'
That was my point.
"to the consideration of issues within its purview"
Or, more accurately, the issue presently before the court.
"and within the arbitrary rules it sets up for itself"
Again, not arbitrary at all. You'll have to expand on why it is you believe the rules (which ones btw?) are arbitrary.
"with a fundamental bias to the argument from authority."
What authority?
"But science doesn't work that way; no clear purview, no arbitrary rules, no definitive judgements; just a constant, ever-revising, ever-challenged empirical search for the best explanation. Not the the best of two explanations provided by opposing sides, not the best explanation which the judge allows to be led, not the best explanation from evidence permissable under an imposed set of rules; just striving for the best explanation."
And that's exactly how scientific evidence is portrayed in the courtroom, except for the arbitrary part. Scientific experts testify to all the above and elucidate the concepts you hold important to the jury or judge. Thus, no worries that science won't be honored in the courtroom.