Criminal Justice and Civil Liability

Civil versus Criminal Liability
Introduction
Criminal justice practitioners do have a civil liability that puts them at risk of being sued by the public. The purpose of civil liability is to encourage accountability and responsible in the field of criminal justice. For that reason, “local governments can now be held liable for the conduct of police officers and jail personnel. In addition, sheriffs, police chiefs, and mid- level supervisors can be held personally liable for the conduct of their subordinates” (Barrineau, 1987, p. 35). Criminal justice agencies can also be held criminally liable for their actions if their behaviors break the law. This paper will examine the difference between criminal and civil liability and show how each relates to criminal justice agencies and practitioners.
The Principles of Criminal Law
The rule of law principle is what binds all to the laws passed by government in the U.S. In order for a person or agency to be held to the rule of law, the law must be:
· Publicly promulgated
· Equally enforced
· Independently adjudicated
· And consistent with international human rights principles (U.S. Courts, 2018a).
There can be no discrimination in terms of who is held accountable to the law. Once a law is made known to the public, all are bound to it. However, the law must be applied to all and it must be enforced in an impartial, non-biased manner. The law must also conform to international norms. If these criteria are met, no agency or criminal justice practitioner can be considered above the law. The rule of law, one applied, embraces all people and agencies in the nation. Any violation of the rule of law can lead to a person or agency being held criminally liable and prosecuted by the state.
When it comes to prosecuting a criminal case, other principles of criminal law include: a) the presumption of innocence—i.e., that one is innocent until proven guilty; b) the burden of proof—i.e., the prosecution must supply the proof if making a charge of guilt; c) the right to remain silent—i.e., one does not have to answer questions during an interrogation; and d) the rule of double jeopardy—i.e., no one can be punished twice for the same crime (General Principles of Criminal Law, 2018). These principles must be observed in criminal cases—however, they do not translate strictly when it comes to civil liability cases, as shall be shown in the next section.
The difference between criminal liability and civil liability is that in the former, the offending party has broken a law of the state and thus injured the state and may be prosecuted by the state. In civil liability a civilian charges that the offending party has personally injured the civilian, in which case the offending party is held responsible for damages to the person in civil court. A civil action begins with one party filing a complaint against another: “the complaint describes the plaintiff’s damages or injury, explains how the defendant caused the harm, shows that the court has jurisdiction, and asks the court to order relief” (U.S. Courts, 2018b).
The Civil Liabilities of Criminal Justice Agencies and Practitioners
Criminal justice agencies and practitioners are subject to the rule of law just like everyone else in the country. Just because they work in the field of the law does not mean they are above the law. However, the other principles are not quite as strict. For example, the burden of proof principle is not applied in the same way. Instead of the burden of proof falling on the prosecution, in a civil case, the individual filing the suit only needs to provide a “preponderance of evidence”—this means just enough evidence to “tip the balance in favor of the plaintiff”—i.e., “if the plaintiff proves that it is more likely than not that the defendant was responsible for her injuries or loss, she wins” (Nolo, 2018). Other principles apply as well: the individual may sue over negligence, such as the agency or practitioner failing to exercise due care which resulted in some loss or damage to the plaintiff. The individual may sue over purposeful acts—such as spreading false rumors that the agency or practitioner knew were false.
For example, President Trump could end up suing the FBI and some of the practitioners in the FBI who knowingly disseminated false information about him using the Steele dossier, which was full of allegations that could not be verified and yet that were used as proof to launch an investigation into Trump and his associates. Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh could, if it were to come out that his accuser of sexual assault was lying, sue her civilly for purposeful acts meant to damage his reputation. Criminal justice agencies and practitioners can be sued in civil court for failing to protect persons and for attempting to frame persons. In any situation where a civilian feels he has been wrong by a criminal justice agency or one of its practitioners there is the possibility of a civil suit being filed—and since the plaintiff does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused but only show that it is likely that that the accused acted in some manner that harmed the plaintiff, the accused will be held liable for damages that are typically awarded monetarily. The O.J. Simpson case is a famous example of an individual who was found not guilty in criminal court but liable for damages in civil court regarding the death of Ron Goldman. Similar instances have occurred among criminal justice practitioners and agencies.
When it comes to the actual application of criminal law to the civil liability arena, the rule of law still applies. Barrineau (1987) states that “most civil suits against criminal justice personnel are brought under Title 42 U.S. Code, Section 1983, which provides civil liability for any person who acts ‘under color of any statute’ in any U.S. jurisdiction to deprive any person in that jurisdiction of constitutional rights” (Office of Justice Programs, 2018). This means that criminal law applies to civil liability cases in all ways—it is just the manner in which liability is determined that differs. Civil liability cases are prosecuted differently from criminal law cases and the punishment is typically different as well, with damages paid through a cash award rather than with prison time. The plaintiff also merely needs to provide a preponderance of evidence as opposed to evidence that leads a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
Real World Scenario
A police officer who plants evidence at the scene of a crime in order to frame a person for murder could be sued in civil court and face civil liability. The officer could also face criminal prosecution and jail time if found guilty. However, the officer could also face the civil liability of having to pay damages to the plaintiff who files the civil suit. While this may seem like a violation of the principle of double jeopardy, it must be remembered that these are two different courts—civil and criminal. The officer cannot be punished in criminal court more than once, but he can be held liable in civil court for causing damages to the person or family for planting evidence.
There are also more subtle ways a criminal justice agency can be sued in civil court. Failure to adequately train officers is one way a criminal justice agency’s superiors can be held civilly liable: indeed, “failure-to-train claims represent a majority of supervisory liability actions” (Ross, 2009). An officer who is inadequately trained by superiors in a police department and takes actions that are contrary to the safe procedures that officers are meant to utilize when in the line of duty could be held civilly liable and his supervisor could be held civilly liable as well. The civil liability depends on the damages that were done to a civilian. For example, an officer is told by his superior that it is okay to speed to a non-job related event in his police car while off-duty, using his sirens to move traffic out of the way; the speeding off-duty officer ends up rear-ending a driver and causing health problems for that driver. The officer states that he was told by his superior that it was okay to drive in this manner. He provides evidence of his superior also using his police car in a similar manner. There is likely no need for further evidence as the condition of a preponderance of evidence would have been met and both the offending officer and his superior could be held civilly liable for damages to the person who was rear-ended.
Conclusion
Criminal justice agencies and practitioners are subject to the rule of law in the U.S. just like anyone else or any other organization. Just because they are in the field of the law does not mean they are above the law. The principles of criminal law apply to civil liability cases as well. However, the manner in which a civil case is prosecuted is different from the manner of criminal prosecution. There is no need for evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The plaintiff only needs to provide a preponderance of evidence indicating it likely that the defendant is responsible for damages to the plaintiff. Second, the





References
Barrineau, H. E. (1987). Civil liability in criminal justice (pp. 35-53). Cincinnati, OH:
Pilgrimage.
General Principles of Criminal Law. (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch12s02.php
Nolo. (2018). Civil liability. Retrieved from
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/civil-liability.htm
Office of Justice Programs. (2018). Civil liability. Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=104921
Ross, D. (2009). Civil liability in criminal justice. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9781422461396/civil-liability-in-criminal-justice
U.S. Courts. (2018a). Overview—rule of law. Retrieved from
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/overview-rule-law
U.S. Courts. (2018b). Civil cases. Retrieved from
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/civil-cases