How is the level of proof in a criminal case different from a civil case?

criminal law


In criminal litigation, the burden of proof is always on the state. The state must prove that the defendant is guilty. The defendant is assumed to be innocent; the defendant needs to prove nothing. (There are exceptions. If the defendant wishes to claim that he/she is insane, and therefore not guilty, the defendant bears the burden of proving his/her insanity. Other exceptions include defendants who claim self-defense or duress.)





In criminal litigation, the state must prove that the defendant satisfied each element of the statutory definition of the crime, and the defendant's participation, ';beyond a reasonable doubt.'; It is difficult to put a valid numerical value on the probability that a guilty person really committed the crime, but legal authorities who do assign a numerical value generally say ';at least 98% or 99%'; certainty of guilt.





civil law


In civil litigation, the burden of proof is initially on the plaintiff. However, there are a number of technical situations in which the burden shifts to the defendant. For example, when the plaintiff has made a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to refute or rebut the plaintiff's evidence.





In civil litigation, the plaintiff wins if the preponderance of the evidence favors the plaintiff. For example, if the jury believes that there is more than a 50% probability that the defendant was negligent in causing the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff wins. This is a very low standard, compared to criminal law. In my personal view, it is too low a standard, especially considering that the defendant could be ordered to pay millions of dollars to the plaintiff(s).





A few tort claims (e.g., fraud) require that plaintiff prove his/her case at a level of ';clear and convincing evidence';, which is a standard higher than preponderance, but less than ';beyond a reasonable doubt.';How is the level of proof in a criminal case different from a civil case?
Beyond all reasonable doubt in a criminal case


On the balance of the evidence in a civil case


When you say it quickly it seems to say the same but their is a huge differenceHow is the level of proof in a criminal case different from a civil case?
In simple terms;





Civil = On the balance of probability.





Criminal = Beyond all reasonable doubt.
In a civil case the judgement has to be by a preponderance of the evidence and a majority of the jury.


In a criminal case the jury jhas to decide unanimously and on evidence which is beyond a reasonable doubt.In a 12 man civil jury case it takes 7 jurors to reach a verdict.


In a criminal case it takes all 12 without exception.
in a criminal case you must be found guilty ';beyond a reasonable doubt.'; In a civil case it is a ';preponderance of the evidence'; meaning more likely than not...basically 50.1%. The criminal level is much more difficult to achieve.
Ask OJ .................................
In a civil case the level of proof is based on the ';level of probability'; in a criminal case it is based on ';beyond a reasonable doubt';. because the penalty for criminal cases of guilt usually means imprisonment so guilt must be beyond doubt before someones freedom is taken from them. In civil cases the ';panel'; decide on the facts before them if it was probable that the person committed the offence etc. Probability has a lower level of determination or proof.
In a criminal case, the legal burden of proof is upon the prosecution to prove all elements of the offense which is generally beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, the legal burden of proof is ';preponderance of evidence'; generally thought to be greater than 50%. That's the difference in proving a criminal case vs. a civil case.
In UK Bear has given the correct answer
preponderance of evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt
Beyond reasonable doubt





Balance of probabilities





If in a criminal case there is a defence or excupultary matter, the standard is balance of probabilities. If the defence/EM is established, the prosecution need to dis-prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
all agree in criminal





7 of 12 agree in civil.
Guilt or innocence must be shown 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' in a criminal case.





In a civil case, just a 'preponderance of evidence' is necessary for a verdict.





What is the difference between criminal and civil court?


Criminal Cases





Criminal acts are those that go against the rules of the Criminal Code or against another federal statute (e.g. the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act). In Canada, a criminal act is legally seen as an offence against the state, even though there may have been a specific individual who was the victim of the crime.





In a criminal trial, there are two sides: the prosecution and the defence. The prosecution brings the case to trial. The lawyer who prosecutes is called a Crown, or Prosecuting Attorney. ';Crown'; refers to his or her role as representative of the state.





If there is a victim of the crime, that person will have their own legal representation. The Crown Attorney is not their lawyer. If they have a role in the trial, it will be as a witness to the crime.





The person charged with committing a criminal act is called the accused or the defendant. The accused has the right to represent him or herself, but is most often represented by a defence lawyer.





A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is the prosecution's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. If the prosecution is unable to do this, the accused is acquitted and set free. The rights of the accused person are guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.





If an accused person is found guilty, they will receive a sentence, or punishment. This could range from a small fine to a long time in prison, depending on the crime. The death penalty is not practised in Canada.





Civil Cases





In a civil case, both parties are called litigants. The person who brings the issue to the courts is called a plaintiff, and the person responding is called a defendant.





Suing a person or an organization is done through civil law. Family Law and Labour Law are both examples of civil law.





If a civil claim is ruled valid, the judge will likely state how the problem can be fiexed (ie. name a rememdy) Depending on the case, the judge might tell the defendant to pay the plaintiff damages, make a public apology or stop a particular activity or action. For example, if you had filed an action against a newspaper for publishing incorrect and harmful information about you, a judge might tell the newspaper to print a correction and an apology and to pay you for the loss of reputation that you had suffered.





What's the difference between a civil and a criminal conviction?





QUESTION:





O.J. Simpson is NOT guilty as judged by criminal court. Yet a civil court held him accountable. I see him as NOT a murderer. So, how is the civil court's determination different from the criminal? And is O.J. still NOT guilty of murder?





ANSWER:





You are not alone in being confused about how a person acquitted of murder in a criminal trial can be held liable for a victim's wrongful death in a civil trial.





The first step to understanding this seeming contradiction is to know that a criminal prosecution involves different laws, a different court system, and different burdens of proof. Specifically, the definition of first degree murder in the context of the O.J. case requires that the act be done deliberately and with a great deal of malice directed toward the victim. And to convict in the criminal court, the case against the defendant must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.





In a civil case for wrongful death, on the other hand, you have to show only that the defendant was legally responsible for the death. But, to get punitive damages, as the plaintiffs did in the O.J. case, you have to show that the defendant acted recklessly. The burden of proof in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence -- a much lesser burden than is required in a criminal case.





So, while a criminal jury might reasonably fail to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquit the accused, a civil jury might also reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she acted recklessly and should be held civilly accountable for the death.





Is the former football hero Orenthal James Simpson a murderer? A civil jury found it more likely than not that he caused the death of his wife and her friend. A criminal jury was unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that O.J. committed first degree murder. Seen this way, there is no contradiction.