Civil law seeks redress and compensations for transgressions while criminal law seeks punishment. Civil law is not aimed at punishing the defendant but making them suffer from compensation so as to satisfy the offended party. Criminal law incarcerates in a jail, fines or in exceptional cases leads to execution of the defendant. Crimes in criminal law are subdivided into misdemeanors and felonies. For example, a murder case is criminal while defamation is civil and there implications are totally different (Bastiat, 2004).
In law, a case is won or lost depending on whether a proof is accepted or rejected by the jury. The burden of proof is the obligation to make your argument before a court of law acceptable while the opposition’s opinion is dismissed. When one proofs their case, they get the benefit of assumption; thereby shifting the burden of proof to the opposition. In criminal law, the burden of proof is vested on the state. It is upon the state's prosecutor to prove that the accused person is guilty. The accused person is not guilty until it is proven; therefore they are assumed to be innocent. However, in a case where they claim to be insane, have acted under duress or in self defense, they have to prove it. In civil law, ideally the burden of proof initially lies with the plaintiff. However, the defendant has to counter the evidence provided by the plaintiff (Bastiat, 2004).
An example of a criminal case is people v. Lal which was heard in California. The case was between the state and an alleged member of the “Taliban” gang. The police specialist in relation to gangs testified in the case, to prove that the accused participated and was a member. The argument was based on the three strikes law of California. The case was dismissed since according to the evidence provided, it was not proven beyond doubt. Trkulija v. Google is an example of a civil case where Trkulija won. He had instituted a civil proceeding in Melbourne against Google for putting his image alongside another image of a convicted drug lord. The Supreme Court in Australia ruled that payment of damages be done and his photos pulled down from the Google websites.
References
Bastiat, F. (2004). The Law. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing.
