Question

Compare and contrast the burdens of proof in Civil law and Criminal law.

Answer 1

The standards for burden of proof are different in civil laws and criminal laws.

In criminal laws, it is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. to establish through evidences that no other conclusion can be drawn under the light of proven facts, besides holding the person guilty, and convince the jury for that. On the other hand, in civil cases, what needs to be established is preponderance of the evidence, which means that the party which has the burden to prove, convinces the jury that the chances for the claim to be true are more than 50%.

The high standards of burden of proof in criminal cases means that one would not be convicted with a crime in a court of law, unless court is absolutely sure of it. Any doubts in the case, would lead to acquittal. On the other hand, one would need quality of evidences that can establish that there are more than 50% chances of claim being true to hold the person guilty. The difference in standards is due to the fact that criminal cases would lead to punishments  including jail term and penalties, which are more severe in nature than civil penalties which are most likely to be financial in nature. It needs the courts to make sure that an innocent is never punished, even if a guilty is not convicted in want of evidences.