Burden of Proof
October 21st, 2007The burden of proof in criminal courts and civil courts are two totally different things. In criminal court, the prosecution seeks punishment like incarceration of the defendant, or even death. In the other hand, civil courts are equally powerful in a way but they seek a different type of punishment. Since they deal with private matters, they are more likely to settle things monetarily. Although they might work differently, they seek the same goal. The goal is to punish those who do civil and criminal wrongs to society.
Criminal courts are a huge part of the court system in the U.S. They work with all those citizens who violate the law. The prosecutors who are in charge of proving that the defendant is guilty, have to make sure that the evidence supporting the case is enough to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Meanwhile the defendant’s lawyer has to find any leak available to prove the prosecutors wrong. If by any chance the prosecutors can’t prove the defendant’s guilt beyond the reasonable doubt, the defendant will be free to go.
Civil courts may have many similarities, but it works differently. As I explained before, civil courts seek monetary compensation while criminal courts seek incarceration or death. For this reason, the burden of proof in civil is less than in criminal courts. In civil courts you only have to prove that the individual was more likely to commit the act than not. If you actually were allowed to put numbers to the burden of proofs it would look something like 50.001% for civil courts and from 73% to 93% for criminal courts. This makes it obvious how different criminal courts and civil courts really are.