A conviction leads to sentencing (normally) in a criminal matter. A cival court is settling a cival matter, not a criminal one. Criminal courts convict you of a crime and sentence you to some kind of punishment. Cival courts can make you pay a fine, but not convict you of a crime.
But there’s more to it than just semantics. There’s also the level of certainty - civil trials have a dramatically lower standard of evidence than criminal trials.
So when you say he’s been convicted of rape, you’re saying that 12 people were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed rape. But that’s not the case - instead a judge was convinced it was at least slightly more likely than not that he committed rape. That’s a very different standard.
Removed by mod
No, it’s because the finding was made in civil court, not criminal court, therefore not convicted.
Removed by mod
A conviction leads to sentencing (normally) in a criminal matter. A cival court is settling a cival matter, not a criminal one. Criminal courts convict you of a crime and sentence you to some kind of punishment. Cival courts can make you pay a fine, but not convict you of a crime.
Removed by mod
Sure, he’s a rapist. But not a convicted rapist. That’s all that’s being said
That would be a more accurate statement, yes.
But there’s more to it than just semantics. There’s also the level of certainty - civil trials have a dramatically lower standard of evidence than criminal trials.
So when you say he’s been convicted of rape, you’re saying that 12 people were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed rape. But that’s not the case - instead a judge was convinced it was at least slightly more likely than not that he committed rape. That’s a very different standard.