Introduction
There are a couple of important fundamental differences between a criminal action and a civil action. One of the most apparent 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 a group of individuals. Another fundamental distinction between a criminal and civil action is that the parties go to the court. In a criminal action, the prosecution represents the people and presents the case to the court. In a civil action, by contrast, an injured petitioner will bring the lawsuit against the particular respondent who inflicted the harm. Considering that 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 law suits and the specific standards that are required for a finding of liability against a respondent.
Criminal Action
In a criminal case, the respondent has much more to lose if he or she is found guilty by a court. The potential penalties could range from simple fines to the most severe punishment of all: the capital punishment. Because the liberty and freedom of the particular respondent matters in a criminal case, the law requires a more sensitive burden of proof to convict a respondent. 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, for the respondent to be convicted of the crime in question, the government must meet this burden of proof in connection with every element of the offence (Hemesath, 2001, p. 1644). If the hearing fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, then the respondent may be acquitted (Hemesath, 2001, p. 1644).
This is important that the suit meets its necessary burden of proof when an explicit element of a crime is at stake, for example, the level of respondent’s intent. Statutes that define murder have all the important elements of the crime that must be met before the defendant can be charged. For example, the state of Tennessee defines murder as the “unlawful killing of another person” (Tennessee Code § 39-13-202, 2014). The elements of murder can be broken down in the following order: 1) unlawful, 2) killing, and 3) belonging to another human being.
The majority of criminal cases state that the actus reus of the crime definition is not an argument. It might be 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 perceived as a more difficult question since it becomes significant that the hearing must prove each element of the crime. Homicide is divided into varying degrees of murder, each with corresponding penalties that can be 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 respondent, the hearing is required to prove premeditation and deliberation on the part of the respondent. If the hearing fails to prove these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, a first-degree murder charge cannot be sustained and the respondent 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 respondent. It is a private individual suing in his or her own capacity another party who has injured or harmed the petitioner 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). Although this standard might be seen as obscure, it is clear that the prevalence of the evidence standard imposes a lesser burden than the other standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. The preponderance of the evidence standard in a civil case means that a petitioner must prove his or her case by showing that the facts in argument are more probable than they are not (Orloff and Stedinger, 1983, p. 1159).
While civil claims are initiated due to intentional conduct, the vast majority of civil actions are based on a theory of negligence. The typical negligence case suggests that the petitioner is required to establish facts that prove all four of its elements: 1) duty, 2) breach, 3) causation, and 4) damages (Owen, 2007, p. 1673). Generally speaking, this is the breach element that is the subject of most civil actions. To succeed in a negligence case, the petitioner must prove that conduct of the defendant was careless and unreasonable, and thus breached the requisite duty of care that was outstanding to the petitioner (Owen, 2007, p. 1677). In case the defendant can be convicted of having breached the duty of care, the jury or factfinder must find by a prevalence of the evidence of the particular defendant’s actions falling below a reasonable person’s actions under the circumstances (Korsmo, 2013, p. 297). If the judge does not find through a prevalence of the evidence that the conduct of the responded failed to conform to a reasonable person’s actions that he or she would normally have taken under similar circumstances, then the respondent will not be found guilty of breaching the standard of care and the petitioner will lose the court case.
Conclusion
The reason why the contradictory standards impose liability against respondents in criminal and civil claims is that the respondent’s rights and liberty interests are more concerned in a criminal case. If a respondent loses a civil court case, the respondent may have to refund him, at the same time the respondent will not be sentenced to several years in prison or have restrictions imposed to his or her personal freedom. Cognizant of the heightened risk for wrongfully depriving respondents of their rights in a criminal case, a higher burden of proof is required to obtain a conviction against a respondent in a criminal procedure rather than in a civil procedure. The government carries the full burden of proof in a criminal case. However, in a civil case, the petitioner merely needs to show that the prevailing facts establish the claim.
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.
