civil tort criminal law differences

Civil vs. Criminal Law Goals The American justice system differentiates between civil (tort) and criminal law, with the most significant distinction being that the state generally has the authority to prosecute crimes but not torts, while individuals have the power to directly bring civil but not criminal charges.

The goals of a criminal case are to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, but also to uphold the tenets of the law, protecting the public safety and in many cases offering some form of victim restitution to promote principled justice (“The Difference Between Torts and Crimes,” 2004). Players The distinction is due to the perception that crimes are affronts to the state, and require no individual plaintiff. On the other hand, tort law covers contracts between parties and not between one party and the state.

The general public represented by a jury plays a part in criminal but not civil cases. Commencement Commencement procedures differ significantly in civil versus criminal cases. In a criminal case, the state initiates the prosecution of the crime, and bears the burden of proof. The defendant’s rights are protected under Constitutional law.

In a civil case, the plaintiff must prove there is a “preponderance of evidence” showing the accused acted in a negligent way or breached a contract (“The Differences between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case,” n.d.). When brought to trial, criminal cases must include a jury as per Constitutional law. On the other hand, civil cases are more typically resolved out of the courtroom as with mediation, or alternatively, heard by a judge but not a jury.

A defendant in a civil case is also not entitled to an attorney, as one is in a criminal case (“The Differences between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case,” n.d.). Because the state is not prosecuting a civil case, the defendant’s rights are not protected under Constitutional provisions. Outcomes and Remedies Breach of contract in civil law, such as negligence, often results in deleterious outcomes, even death.

Yet the burden of proof in civil cases is generally lower than for criminal cases due to the more severe potential outcomes of the latter and the broader ethical principles at stake when defining criminal law. Outcomes may include incarceration or rehabilitation with the goal of promoting public safety or offering victim retribution through community service. In a civil case, the plaintiff will likewise seek restitution for actual or principled damages, and the outcome is usually quantified in financial terms.

Intersections Between Civil and Criminal Cases The same incident or event may be tried as both a civil and a criminal case. The most famous case that was tried at both the criminal and the civil levels was the O.J. Simpson case. While the criminal case was dismissed, the family of the victim was able to use civil law to seek damages. Therefore, civil law can offer additional protections to victims of harmful acts that for whatever reason lacked the standards of proof necessary to secure a criminal conviction.

Civil cases can also provide victims with additional financial retribution that a criminal case does not provide. Moreover, the Simpson case demonstrates one of the core differences between civil and criminal law: mens rea and actus reus. Mens rea refers to intent to cause harm: essentially what distinguishes an act of negligence versus a criminal act (Model Penal Code’s Mens Rea,” n.d.). The principle of actus reus focuses mainly on the act.

mala in se or mala prohibita Criminal acts are generally considered mala in se, wrong in itself. In the Simpson case, murder is always in mala se. However, the jury.