Civil and Criminal law represent two different branches of the legal system, and as such deal with very different cases, using different legal principles and can produce very different outcomes. Probably the best example of the differences between criminal and civil law is that of the OJ Simpson case. Having been found Not Guilty of the murder of his wife under criminal law he was then found liable for her death in a civil suit taken by her parents. In order to understand how these two branches of law differ, this article will examine a variety of aspects of each.
What are the objectives?
Criminal law is based upon the notion that there are actions which are undesirable within society. These actions are therefore criminalized under statute law. Obvious examples include murder and sexual assault. Criminal law therefore aims to do a number of things. It aims to deter people from committing criminal acts, to punish those individuals that do and rehabilitate them through incarceration.
Civil law on the other hand is not so much about punishment as it is about righting wrongs, upholding agreements and settling disputes. Civil law covers a wide number of legal topics such as tort, contract, inheritance and commercial law.
Who can pursue a case?
In criminal law only the state can prosecute a case. The authority to prosecute comes from the statute law within America. Civil law is different in that any individual, business or even the state itself can pursue a claim against another individual.
What needs to be proved?
The criminal law is based upon the principle that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man gets found guilty and sent to prison. Therefore at the heart of the criminal law system is that everyone is presumed innocent until found guilty. The evidence presented by the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty in order for them to be found guilty. This essentially means that there is a 99.9% chance that the defendant committed the crime.
Civil law however does not involve imprisonment and therefore this inbuilt presumption of innocence does not exist. In a civil law matter the evidence must only prove a much lower standard, on a balance of probabilities. This means that it must only be proven by the plaintiff’s counsel that there was a greater chance that the defendant was guilty than he was not. Applying this to the OJ Simpson case helps to explain why he could be found liable in civil law but not guilty in criminal law. The burden of proof in the latter was not met by the prosecution. Some reasonable doubt remained.
For the majority of crimes the prosecution must also prove two separate facts, the existence of actus reus and mens rea. This means that for a defendant to be found guilty it must be proven, beyond all reasonable doubt, that they both carried out the crime and also that they intended to carry out the crime. Action and intention constitute the crime. There are some exceptions to this general rule whereby proving intention is not necessary. Civil law, on the other hand, does not require intention to be proven. The act alone is sufficient to establish liability. Intention may lead to greater damages being awarded but it will not affect the finding of liability.
What are the defenses?
As criminal law looks at both the act and the intention a number of criminal defenses have emerged which focus on negating the intention aspect of the crime. These include insanity, self-defense and duress. These defenses establish that there was no mens rea in the commission of the crime and therefore a crime was not committed. As civil law does not have any interest in mens rea such defenses are not applicable.
Another key difference between defenses in civil and criminal law is the issue of consent. In civil law the defendant can argue that the plaintiff consented to the breach of contract. However in criminal law this defense cannot be used. It is not possible to consent to murder or consent to sexual assault.
How are the defendants protected?
The presumption of innocence in criminal law is so fundamental that a number of protections of this presumption exist in the US Constitution. The Fifth Amendment allows a right to silence of the accused in order to prevent them from implicating themselves. Such silence cannot be used as suggestion of guilt. This is not the case in civil law. A defendant must produce all documents that are relevant to the case even if they are incriminating. Also if a defendant refuses to answer questions guilt can be inferred.
What are the consequences of guilt?
The consequences of being found guilty for criminal DUI and other types of crime under criminal law include imprisonment, fines, and criminal records which could be sentenced by the prosecution lawyer. It is the potential for imprisonment that makes the criminal law fundamentally different from civil law. This likelihood of imprisonment has given rise to the presumption of innocence and such protections as the Fifth Amendment. The consequences of being found liable under civil law are only financial and therefore do not warrant the same level of protection. However, there is a way to file for an appeal and hiring a criminal appeal lawyer, criminal defense lawyer, felony attorney or murder lawyer may help you with it.
Although both civil law and criminal law are very different they share one key similarity. If you are involved in either a criminal case or civil proceedings you should seek legal representation from an attorney who specializes in the area of your case. This is the best way to protect yourself and your rights. To find the right attorney contact your local bar association, ask your associates or do some research online- whether assault or battery attorney, homicide lawyer, shoplifting lawyer, etc. Take some time to work out which is the best attorney for you.