Replies

Something is either civil, or its criminal. A person shouldn't get two chances in different courts with different thresholds of proof to "get" somebody for the same crime.

That's not the law, and it wouldn't make sense if it were. Think about it for a second. It would mean that if someone was being really stupid and incredibly careless and they hurt you (or your kid, your house, your car, etc.), you could make them pay for it by proving your case by a preponderance of the evidence. But if they hurt you deliberately, so they were facing criminal prosecution as well, your case against them would fail unless the evidence met the stricter test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you really think it makes sense for it to be tougher to sue someone who intentionally kills your family than it is to sue someone who accidentally does it? Your theory would have the law turned upside down, with intentional wrongdoers better off than merely careless ones. No thanks.

Think about it for a second. It would mean that if someone was being really stupid and incredibly careless and they hurt you (or your kid, your house, your car, etc.), you could make them pay for it by proving your case by a preponderance of the evidence.

And this is wrong. Either they harmed me or another, or they didn't. If it can not be proven, there is no recourse. If this act wasn't criminal, I could take them to "civil court". At that point, I must prove they committed the act that caused the alledged harm. I must prove what the harm is as well.

But if they hurt you deliberately, so they were facing criminal prosecution as well, your case against them would fail unless the evidence met the stricter test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes, once convicted by a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, you can then recover losses.

I think you misunderstood my post a little. I'm not talking about a simple "civil" suit. I am talking about an issue such as a murder where the person is tried in two different courts with two different standards of proof. If the person is acquitted of murder, there is no way that someone should be able to take them to "civil court", for the same crime, and be able to have them tried under lesser criteria. If it can not be proven that the individual murdered someone, it is not right for another court to be able to punish the person monitarily for an act that was never proven. This is the essence of being tried twice for the same crime. Because the "punishment" is different doesn't change this fact.

And more specifically, I am talking about acts that are strictly criminal(murder, theft, rape). Once it is proven that the defendent committed the criminal act, then by all means the victim should be able to recover from the defendant. I dissagree with the current state of law where a person can be sued in civil court for a criminal act and also tried in criminal court for the same act.