From your readings by now, it should be clear that a single act say for example a "Hit and Run" with an automobile can be tried in criminal court and can also be litigated in civil court by the wronged person - even if the alleged perpetrator is alleged to be not guilty in the criminal case or not responsible for injuries in a civil case. This occurred in the famous O.J. Simpson case (look it up if you are not familiar). Do you think it is ever fair for a defendant to be deemed not guilty or not responsible for an act and then have to go through with another court proceeding? Why or why not? Would some form of alternative dispute resolution make more sense in cases where the defendant has been deemed not guilty if the criminal proceeding took place first? Support your answer with logic.