That's correct. You prove it, or you don't.
But that’s not how the world works. It’s a spectrum, a matter of degree. Someone can show you proof that makes you think something probably happened, but you’re not completely sure. To imagine it in numerical terms, the evidence might make you 55% convinced, or 80% convinced, or 99.99% convinced.
"Matter of degree"? Horsecrap. You prove it, or you don't. You are talking about "gut feelings" taking precedent over actual evidence.
Second, you are assuming that the standard of proof should be different in a civil case depending on whether a criminal case preceded it.
No, I state that an act that is strictly criminal should not be tried in a civil court. Once it is proven that the person committed the criminal act, then the victim can seek monetary recourse in the same court.
Please realize that would be absurd. As I explained above, it would mean that you would have a harder time recovering from an intentional wrongdoer than one who was merely careless. That is backwards.
As I calrified, and I know you hadn't read when you posted this, I was referring to acts that are strictly criminal like murder, rape and theft. Not an incident where a neighbor was chopping down a tree and it landed on your car.
Think about an example... Suppose that Paula claims Willie sexually harassed her. It’s not a crime, but it’s something for which a person can be held civilly liable.
Let me stop you right there. It shouldn't be civilly liable. Why does one "owe" another money because of claims that they were offended by words or actions? Assaults and rapes are different, and are criminal matters.
But suppose instead that Juanita claims that Willie raped her. She has enough proof to make a reasonable person 90% convinced that he did it. The prosecutors indict Willie for raping Juanita, it goes to trial, and the jury acquits him because it is only 90% convinced of his guilt, leaving them with a reasonable doubt.
This "percentage" stuff is nonsense. Either the evidence is there, or it isn't.
So Juanita sues... and Judge FreeTally throws her case out of court. Willie gets off scot free, and doesn’t have to pay her dime, because there was a prior criminal case.
Damn straight. It was not proven that the act of rape occurred. Why does Juanita get another chance to rob Willie if it hasn't been proven he raped her? That is what is absurd. Willie is being tried for the SAME act twice.
So under your theory, Juanita has proof that is just as strong as Paula’s, and suffered a far more serious injury, but she loses out because she alleges something that could constitute both a crime and a civil tort. That can't possibly be a sensible outcome.
Sorry, it is trial lawyers who created this notion that an act can be both a criminal act and a civil tort. The correct term is restitution. Restitution can be sought from a person concvicted of a crime which is strictly criminal.
I realize that at first glance it seems unjust that someone can face a second case after being found not guilty in the first one.
There is no "glancing". Its unjust.
But unless you want to make the standards of proof the same for civil and criminal cases (which would be silly), it's both inevitable and perfectly appropriate that some people will face civil suits regardless of the outcome of the criminal case against them.
Again, why would that be silly? Because it puts lawyers out of a job? Its disallows people to rob another after they have bee nacquitted of the act which was a crime? You just state it as truth.
Like I said before, if the acvt is criminal, then you go to criminal court. If the person is convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, then restitution can be sought. IF the person is acquitted, end of story.
If your neighbor has torted you, and has not committed a criminal act, then you go to civil court. You must prove that your neighbor torted you. You must prove the monetary damage. If the jury believes a) Your neighbor torted you and b) The monetary damage you claim is correct, then you may recover the damage.
Honestly, this isn't that difficult.
This business of "Well, I'm not really sure he raped you, there is a reasonable doubt, but what the hell, he must pay you $20,000" is what's absurd.