• DandomRude
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Yes, seems so. But it’s really the weirdest thing, i’d say.

    • Bigmouse
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      Legally, it can be explained quite easily. Civil liability must only rise to the standard of “preponderance of the evidence”, meaning something like ‘more likely than not’. A criminial conviction however, must rise to the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”. That’s the difference.

      • DandomRude
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        I get that. I just don’t understand why the public prosecutor’s office didn’t at least try. But hey, maybe they will later on. I guess we will have to wait and see.