Crimes vs. Civil Wrongs Civil

Crimes vs. Civil Wrongs civil wrong, also called a tort, is covered by the tort law, a branch of civil law (Coleman 2003). A crime is the violation of a public law (Lexico Publishing Company LLC 2006) and covered by criminal law. In criminal law, the plaintiff is the state and the defendant, if found guilty, is punished by the state. In civil law, the dispute is between private parties. The plaintiff is the victim of the offense charged. The defendant, when unsuccessful, is directed by the court to pay damages to the complainant or to refrain from the injurious activity of which is accused. Battery, defamation, and invasion of privacy are examples of intentional torts or civil wrongs. Negligence is an example of unintentional tort or civil wrong. The tort compels the offender to repair the wrongdoing as a duty. This duty is imposed on him not as a punishment or a sanction, however. In comparison, criminal violators are subjected to punishments for their crimes. Unlike in torts, criminal violators do not have the duty to be punished or to allow others to punish them. The duty to repair in civil wrongs is a debt of repayment to the offended and injured party. Third parties can make the repayment. In comparison, a crime cannot be borne or remitted by a third party. But both a civil wrong and a crime are injustices done primarily to the plaintiff and, secondarily, to the world (Coleman).

The California Penal Code 422 defines criminal threat as an act committed by a person who willfully threatens to commit a crime, which will result in the death or great bodily injury to another person (Cooley 2001). The person who makes the threat must have the specific intent for which the statement is taken even if there is no intent in actually carrying it out. It is enough that, on its face and under the circumstances the threat it is made, the threat is unconditional, immediate and specific enough to convey the message to the person for which it is intended. The effect is reasonable fear in the person threatened for his or her safety or that of his or her family. In proving a criminal threat, the prosecutor must satisfactorily establish that the four elements required are present. First, the person's threat, if committed, would result in the death or great bodily injury to another person. The criminal threat is a crime of words, not of conduct or a pattern of conduct. A single threat is sufficient. But the threat must be fatal or cause substantial bodily injury on the person threatened. Second, the person who made the threat must have a specific intent that the statement be taken as a threat. He need not perform the threat to constitute a crime. It is enough that he or she intended the statement to be taken as a threat. Third, the context and the circumstances in which the statement is said is also important. The meaning is derived from the words and all the surrounding circumstances. And fourth, the threatening statement, on its face and under the circumstances, should be unmistakably clear, unconditional, immediate and specific as to convey to the person threatened the seriousness of the statement. It is must also transmit the message about the immediacy of the performance of the threat. The person who made the threat need not standing before the victim with a weapon when making the threat. He does not even have to demonstrate the immediate ability to carry out the threat, the time or specific manner of carrying it out. It is enough that the words used were of an immediately threatening nature and convey immediate execution. The threat may be made face-to-face, through telephone, in print or through another person. Conditional threats are true threats if their context and the surrounding circumstances reasonably impart that message to the intended person. The issue is the evoking of sustained fear in the intended person or his or her family for their lives or safety. Sustained fear refers to that period of time, which extends the fleeting moment. Fifteen minutes of fear can constitute sustained fear. A person convicted of a criminal threat can be prosecuted for a misdemeanor or a felony up to three years in a state prison. A misdemeanor is punishable up to a year in a country jail (Cooley).

In the case of Bill and Joe, Bill's action fulfills all the four elements required to prove a criminal threat. If Bill became successful with his threat, he could have killed or severely injured Joe with the bat. His words conveyed his intent to kill Joe. The intent was clear and complete from his utterance. The threat was fatal. Second, Bill's utterance expressed a specific intent to kill Joe and that he meant Joe to receive it as such. Bill may or may not have been able to carry his threat out, but his intent was clear and complete from his very statement. Third, the context and circumstances in which Bill made the threatening statement also convey the same fatal intent. Bill had been giving Joe a hard time about the latter's tardiness for several days. Bill could have taken suspected that Joe intentionally retaliated when Joe accidentally hit him with a ball. And fourth, the verbalized threat was unmistakably clear, unconditional, immediate and specific. The words were precise and to the point. They sounded immediate, as Bill already held the bat in his hand and charged at Joe. The threat of death or grave bodily hard was specific upon Joe. Bill's clear words and the act of charging Joe and with the bat in hand also presented the factor of immediacy. The weapon was present and visible and accompanied the verbal threat. Bill need or need not demonstrate the immediate ability to carry out his threat. But the words he used were of an immediately threatening nature and conveyed the immediate performance of the fatal or serious threat. Bill's verbal threat and act of charging Joe with a bat were enough to evoke sustained fear in Joe. The conditions were enough to prove a criminal threat against Bill.