I believe it is fair to allow people acquitted of murder to be sued for wrongful death under civil law. The laws governing these two courts are very different and the laws support these cases. In the case where OJ Simpson was not found guilty but paid in civil law, it seemed very fitting, even though the evidence was not sufficient to find him guilty of the crime.
There's a strange standard in the legal system right now where people who are let off of a murder charge because of a lack of hard evidence, but where circumstances still point to the possibility of the defendant having been the murderer, that they be sued for wrongful death charges. If someone is acquitted, they have been acquitted, and that's it, period.
I really never understood this law, though it was justified in obvious cases like the OJ Simpson murders. Once a person is equitted of a crime, the crime should be off the books and unpunishable. I don't know where the civil law gets their jurisdiction, but this is awfully silly.
I don't think that's fair at all. Some families are so convinced that someone killed their loved one that they get really vengeful and go after them in civil court. I think that this should be found to violate the double jeopardy laws where no one can be tried for the same crime twice. Because that's basically what's happening here.