Question

Explain the difference between the standard of proof in criminal and civil cases. how can the standard affect the outcome of a case?

Answer 1

Answer:

Differences Between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case:

The American legal system addresses the wrongdoings that people commit with two different types of cases: civil and criminal. Crimes are generally offences against the state (even if the immediate harm is done to an individual), and are accordingly prosecuted by the state. Civil cases on the other hand, typically involve disputes between individuals regarding the legal duties and responsibilities they owe to one another. These cases are adjudicated through civil lawsuits.

1. Crimes are considered offences against the state, or society as a whole.
2. Criminal offences and civil offences are generally different in terms of their punishment.
3. The standard of proof is also very different in a criminal case versus a civil case.
4. Criminal cases almost always allow for a trial by jury.
5. A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to an attorney.
6. The protections afforded to defendants under criminal law are considerable.

standard of proof in criminal and civil cases:

Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). The difference in standards exists because civil liability is considered less blameworthy and because the punishments are less severe.

- criminal and civil cases are treated very differently, many people often fail to recognize that the same conduct can result in both criminal and civil liability. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of this is the OJ Simpson trial. The same conduct led to a murder trial (criminal) and a wrongful death trial (civil).

In part because of the different standards of proof, there wasn't enough evidence for a jury to decide that OJ Simpson was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the criminal murder case. In the civil trial, however, the jury found enough evidence to conclude that OJ Simpson wrongfully caused his wife's death by a "preponderance of the evidence".

*Hope this is helpful to you, thank you & rate.