Civil vs. Criminal court

[Spidermannw]

I am really confused as to why there are certain differences.

Why don't the districts that require a statute before a case goes to criminal court require a statute before a case goes to civil court as well?

Why don't we let civil courts have the power to incarcerate?

Why do we let criminal courts have the power to put someone to death? If it is justifiable, why don't we let civil courts have the same power?

Why do we have lower standard of proofs in civil courts? If it is justifiable, why don't we lower the standard of proof in criminal courts?

Why do we let criminal courts punish people for non-injury actions (drinking and driving, not just drinking and driving and causing an accident)? And if it is justifiable, why don't we let civil courts do the same?

-Brodie

[510dat]

\"Why don't we let civil courts have the power to incarcerate?\"

That's the primary distinction between civil and criminal courts. Criminal courts deal with cases in which a suspect has violated a criminal law and could be subject to incarceration or possibly death sentences. Because the possible consequences are severe, only the highest level of certainty can convict someone.

Civil courts deal with non-criminal disputes, so the bar is a lot lower. There are so many \"he said/she said\" kind of cases that it's usually impossible to determine 100% who is right or wrong, or even that there has been a wrong done. Therefore, the legal standard could be said to be \"whoever is more correct wins.\" Basically, if you go to civil court and you are 51% wronged/correct, you win the case.

Civil courts don't have the legal mandate to incarcerate or execute people, it's just part of their definition.

To answer your last question, a DUI case is a criminal case because the defendant has (presumably) wronged the state by endangering other people. That and the state congress has decided that DUI is a criminal activity, like armed robbery. In both cases, just because nobody got injured doesn't mean that you haven't put peoples lives in danger.

[Spidermannw]

[quote:fabc13f9b1=\"510dat\"]\"Why don't we let civil courts have the power to incarcerate?\"
That's the primary distinction between civil and criminal courts. Criminal courts deal with cases in which a suspect has violated a criminal law[/quote:fabc13f9b1]

As do civil courts...

[quote:fabc13f9b1=\"510dat\"]and could be subject to incarceration or possibly death sentences. Because the possible consequences are severe, only the highest level of certainty can convict someone.[/quote:fabc13f9b1]

Taking away property is just as severe as incarceration. Would you rather pay one hundred thousand dollars, or spend a day in jail?

As to the death penalty, extra mitigating factors are in place (appeals).

[quote:fabc13f9b1=\"510dat\"]Civil courts deal with non-criminal disputes, so the bar is a lot lower.[/quote:fabc13f9b1]

Since this is not necessarily the case, that \"Civil courts deal with non-criminal disputes\", this means this cannot be the reason for setting the bar a lot lower.

[quote:fabc13f9b1=\"510dat\"]There are so many \"he said/she said\" kind of cases that it's usually impossible to determine 100% who is right or wrong, or even that there has been a wrong done. [/quote:fabc13f9b1]

Simply requiring a contract or statute before a case goes to court would easily clear this up.

Also, the same could be said of the state taking someone to court. So, no real reason to have the difference here.

[quote:fabc13f9b1=\"510dat\"]Therefore, the legal standard could be said to be \"whoever is more correct wins.\" Basically, if you go to civil court and you are 51% wronged/correct, you win the case.[/quote:fabc13f9b1]

And, there really seems to be no compelling reason for this difference.

[quote:fabc13f9b1=\"510dat\"]Civil courts don't have the legal mandate to incarcerate or execute people, it's just part of their definition.[/quote:fabc13f9b1]

So? We could easily redefine it.

[quote:fabc13f9b1=\"510dat\"]To answer your last question, a DUI case is a criminal case because the defendant has (presumably) wronged the state by endangering other people. That and the state congress has decided that DUI is a criminal activity, like armed robbery. In both cases, just because nobody got injured doesn't mean that you haven't put peoples lives in danger.[/quote:fabc13f9b1]

I do not see how a standard of \"if your action can put someone in danger, then we can punish you for it\" has much merit. Seems like this could justify way too many unneeded statutes.

-Brodie