¶ … Criminal and Civil Law A man is charged with brutally killing his ex-wife and her friend, and the family of the two victims also file civil lawsuits "against the man for the damages suffered by the families" (Walston-Dunham, 99) because of the deaths. The first case is a criminal case because the state prosecutor files a case against the man. However, the second proceeding is a civil case because the families of the victims file lawsuits to claim the damages. In the first case, the man was not charged with the criminal offense because there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find the man guilty. However, the man was found guilty in the civil proceeding based on the preponderance of the evidence.

The objective of this study to determine the reason the same evidence are not used for both the criminal and civil proceedings.

"Reason Same Standard of Evidence not used in both Criminal and Civil Case" (Walston-Dunham, 99)

The same type of evidence cannot be used for both the criminal cases and civil cases because the standard of proof for the criminal case is based on "beyond a reasonable doubt" (Walston-Dunham, 99). While the standard of proof for the civil proceeding is based on "balance of probability" (Walston-Dunham, 99). Thus, it is widely understood that the standard of evidence that a judge will accept to convict a suspect is higher in the criminal case than a civil proceeding. In the case of the man charged with a brutal murder, it is essential to understand that the man is being charged with both the criminal and civil cases at the same time. However, evidentiary rules in criminal and civil cases lie on the standard of proof required to persuade the court. Typically, the...

Thus, the prosecutor should proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal proceeding before the man can be charged with murder, however, the standard of proof to found the man guilty of murder is based on a preponderance of the evidence in a civil proceeding. Moreover, the law defines the burden of proof to convict a suspect for criminal charges and civil cases. In the criminal proceedings, the prosecutor must prove all elements of the criminal offenses as being laid down by the Criminal code. Since everyone charged with a criminal offense is presumed innocent until the person is proved guilty based on the law protocol, however, it is not necessary to proof a case beyond a reasonable doubt in a civil case to charge the man.
Dabesu, and Eshetu argue the standard of proof is the major evidential rule between the criminal and civil cases. (2). A standard of proof is defined as the level of proofs required to persuade a court. A standard of proof in a criminal proceeding is heavier showing that the public processor should proof beyond reasonable doubt that the man is guilty of the offense. In another word, the law demands that the judges should be absolutely certain the man is guilty. Some commentators argue that the level of proof to apprehend a suspect in a criminal case is high, which may allow guilty people escaping criminal punishments. However, it is essential to realize that the criminal proceeding is a matter of life and death. In a criminal case, a man can be sentenced to 30- day imprisonment or life imprisonment. In some country, a man found guilty of a criminal offense can be sentenced to death. Since a…