Introduction
There are some important fundamental differences between a criminal action and a civil action. One of the most ostensible differences is the nature of the cause of action underlying the suit. As its name denotes, a criminal action is derived from a past crime that has been committed. A civil action, on the other hand, does not involve a crime, but rather a private wrong to an individual or group of individuals. Another key distinction between criminal and civil action is the parties bringing the suit. In a criminal action, the prosecution represents the people and presents the case to the court. In a civil action, in contrast, an injured plaintiff will bring the private lawsuit against the particular defendant who inflicted the harm. While a court adjudicates both criminal and civil cases, the level of proof needed to liability or fault against a party in either case differs. This paper will discuss the ways in which liability is imposed in both criminal and civil actions and the specific standards that are required for a finding of liability against a defendant.
Criminal Action
In a criminal case, the defendant has much more to lose if he or she is found guilty by a court of law. The potential penalties could range from simple fines all the way to the most severe punishment of them all; the death penalty. Because the defendant’s liberty and freedom is truly at stake in a criminal case, the law requires a heightened burden of proof to convict a defendant. Consistent with the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, the prosecution is required to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (Hemesath, 2001, p. 1644). Thus, in order for the defendant to be convicted of the crime charged, the government must meet this burden of proof as to every element of the crime (Hemesath, 2001, p. 1644). If the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant may be acquitted (Hemesath, 2001, p. 1644).
It becomes important that the prosecution meet its necessary burden of proof when a specific element of a crime, such as the defendant’s level of intent, is at issue. Statutes that define criminal homicide have essential of the crime that must be met in order for the defendant to be charged. For example, the state of Tennessee defines criminal homicide as the “unlawful killing of another person” (Tennessee Code § 39-13-202, 2014). The elements of criminal homicide can be broken down as 1) unlawful, 2) killing, and 3) of another human being.
For a defendant to be convicted under any criminal statute, the prosecution must prove both actus reus and mens rea (Jeffries and Stephan, 1979, pp. 1370-1371). To impose criminal liability of any defendant, it is crucial that the defendant committed the actus reus, that is the underlying criminal act (Jeffries and Stephan, 1979, p. 1370). In the American legal system, no criminal liability may be imposed for mere intention or thinking about committing a crime (Jeffries and Stephan, 1979, p. 1370). Thus, under the Tennessee criminal homicide statute, the actus reus component would only be satisfied if the defendant actually committed murder. No criminal liability could be imposed if the defendant only contemplated committing a murder, but did not actually commit the act of murder.
In the vast majority of criminal cases, the actus reus of the crime definition is not in dispute. It is relatively easy to determine whether the act of murder has taken place or not by virtue that if someone is killed, the act of murder has been carried out. But the second part of the crime definition, the mens rea, is usually a more difficult question is where it becomes significant that the prosecution prove each element of the crime. Criminal homicide is broken down into varying degrees of murder, each with corresponding penalties that are either harsher or more lenient based on the level of intent evidenced by the commission of the crime. For instance, first-degree murder has the requisite elements of premeditation and deliberation (People v. Dykhouse, 1984, p. 154). To sustain a conviction of first-degree murder against a defendant, the prosecution is required to prove premeditation and deliberation on the part of the defendant. If the prosecution fails to prove these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, a first-degree murder charge cannot be sustained and the defendant will be found guilty of a lesser crime, such as second-degree murder of manslaughter.
Civil Action
In a civil action, unlike a criminal action, the government is not bringing charges against the defendant. Instead, it is a private individual suing in his or her own capacity another party who has injured or harmed the plaintiff through tortuous conduct. Whereas a criminal case requires the prosecutor to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, in a civil case, the plaintiff’s burden is to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence (Orloff and Stedinger, 1983, p. 1159). While this standard is somewhat hazy, it is clear that the preponderance of the evidence standard imposes a lesser burden than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. In a civil case, the preponderance of the evidence standard usually means that a plaintiff must prove his or her case by showing that the facts in dispute are more probable than not (Orloff and Stedinger, 1983, p. 1159).
While civil suits are brought for intentional conduct, the overwhelming majority of civil actions are based on a theory of negligence. In the typical negligence case, the plaintiff is required to establish facts that prove four elements: 1) duty, 2) breach, 3) causation, and 4) damages (Owen, 2007, p. 1673). Generally speaking, the element that is the subject of most civil suits is the breach element. To prevail in a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s conduct was careless and unreasonable, and thus breached the requisite duty of care that was owed to the plaintiff (Owen, 2007, p. 1677). For the defendant to have breached the duty of care, the jury or factfinder must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s actions fell below that of a reasonable person under the circumstances (Korsmo, 2013, p. 297). If the jury does not find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s conduct failed to conform to what a reasonable person would have done under similar circumstances, then the defendant will not be found to have breached the standard of care and the plaintiff will lose the case.
Conclusion
The reason for the differing standards to impose liability against defendants in criminal and civil actions is that the defendant’s rights and liberty interests are more heavily implicated in a criminal case. If a defendant loses in a civil case, the defendant may have to pay monetary damages or make restitution, but the defendant will not be compelled to serve a prison sentence or have his or her freedoms substantially revoked. Cognizant of the heightened risk for wrongfully depriving defendants of their rights in ac criminal case, a higher burden of proof is required to obtain a conviction against a defendant in a criminal matter than in a civil matter. The government carries the full burden of proof in a criminal case. In a civil case, however, the plaintiff simply needs to show that the facts establish the claim more likely than not.
References
Hemasath, P.A. (2001). Proof issues. Georgetown Law Journal, 1644-1654.
Jeffries, J.C. and Stephan, P.B. (1979). Defenses, presumptions, and burden of proof in
the criminal law. Yale Law Journal, 1325-1398.
Korsmo, C.R. (2013). Lost in translation: law, economics, and subjective standards of
care in negligence law. Penn State Law Review, 285-337.
Owen, D.G. (2007). The five elements of negligence. Hofstra Law Review, 1671-1685.
People v. Dykhouse, 345 N.W.2d 150 (Mich. 1984).
Tennessee Code § 39-13-202, 2014.
