This paper examines the fundamental distinctions between civil (tort) law and criminal law in the American justice system. It covers the differing goals, parties involved, commencement procedures, burdens of proof, and potential outcomes in each type of case. The paper also explores how the same incident can give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings, using the O.J. Simpson case as a prominent example. Key legal concepts — including mens rea, actus reus, mala in se, and mala prohibita — are introduced to clarify what separates criminal intent from civil negligence and how each framework offers different protections and remedies to victims.
The American justice system differentiates between civil (tort) law 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, to uphold the tenets of the law, to protect public safety, and in many cases to offer some form of victim restitution in order to promote principled justice ("The Difference Between Torts and Crimes," 2004).
This distinction arises from the perception that crimes are affronts to the state and therefore require no individual plaintiff. Tort law, by contrast, governs contracts and disputes between private parties rather than between one party and the state. The general public, represented by a jury, plays a role in criminal but not civil cases.
Commencement procedures differ significantly in civil versus criminal cases. In a criminal case, the state initiates the prosecution 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 negligently 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 required by Constitutional law. Civil cases, on the other hand, are more typically resolved outside the courtroom — through mediation, for example — or heard by a judge without 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.
Breach of contract in civil law, such as negligence, can result in serious harm, including death. Yet the burden of proof in civil cases is generally lower than in criminal cases, owing to the more severe potential outcomes of the latter and the broader ethical principles at stake in defining criminal law. Criminal outcomes may include incarceration or rehabilitation, with the goals of promoting public safety and offering victim retribution through community service. In a civil case, the plaintiff similarly seeks restitution for actual or principled damages, and the outcome is usually quantified in financial terms.
"When one event triggers both types of cases"
"Wrongful by nature versus wrongful by statute"
You’re 61% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.