Difference Between Civil And Criminal Law

Improved Essays
The legal system of United States is composed of two different laws when it involving law litigation, which are civil and criminal. Civil laws, according to Melvin (2011), “are designed to compensate parties for losses as a result of another’s conduct” (Melvin, 2011, p. 18). Criminal law, on the other hand, is a set of rules and regulations that define behaviors prohibited by the government, in which it protects the safety of society.
One of the essential differences between civil and criminal law is in the punishment. For example, a man goes to a bank. He points his gun at a bank teller and yelling on the teller to put the money in a bag. Then, he runs off with the bag of money. This is a bank robbery, is an example of crime. It will be prosecuted
…show more content…
Substantive law is primarily the rationale of setting rights and responsibilities to each party involved in a case (Melvin, 2011). This can be done in many types of cases such as criminal, property, contract, and tort law. Procedural law is different because it establishes what the rights and responsibilities are but not who is the entity. For example in a substantive law that is used in a criminal case, the law shows that the act of committing murder is illegal. It would be the responsibility of the prosecutor to show without a reasonable doubt who committed the murder. Procedural law, in this case, would provide the defendant the right to jury trial. Without a jury trial available to the defendant his or her rights would not be justified, thus be against procedural law guidelines in this case. The jury trial would allow the defendant to plea his or her case to his peers to show the prosecutor is wrong in his or her accusations. Procedural law is the procedures endured in a trial while substantive law is the law itself (Melvin, 2011). Common law was made by the appellate courts. It is developed by previous judges and becomes precedent over similar cases. The principle that similar cases become common law is called stare decisis. When the judge deems the cases to be unique, he will make his decisions based on the facts and rule the case a first impression. Stare decisis is the basis of common

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    If defendants were forced to testify they wouldn’t only have access to answering the questions from the defense attorney, possibly explaining the evidence against them, but they’d also be vulnerable to the cross-examination of the prosecution. The prosecution is supposedly supposed to uphold justice, meaning if they don’t have a strong enough case to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt, then they should drop the charges. However, we can imagine that that rarely happens, even if the defendant is innocent. Therefore, if an innocent defendant is being cross examined, the prosecution should be convinced of their guilt, otherwise, they should have dropped the charges. It’s also important to note that an overwhelming majority, almost two-thirds, of those convicted of crimes haven’t graduated high school.…

    • 1496 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Also, he describes the way judiciary system should operate. Firstly he points that questions of legal right and liability should be decided by applying the law and not by exercise of discretion. He refers to the concept of open court procedures. He understands that everyone should have a right to go to court once they are not able to resolve their issues on their own, therefore he states that means must be provided without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay. The other issue he analyses is fairness.…

    • 1447 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    (1350)Against the Death Penalty: An Analysis of Reiman’s “Moderate” Retribution Theory This argument against the death penalty will examine the “moderate retribution theory of Jeffrey Reiman. In this theory, the premise of retribution for murder defines the validation of the death penalty, yet not in the abuse of justice found in the American criminal justice system. Reiman believes that the death penalty should be abolished because criminals are not always cognitively aware of the crimes that they commit, which demands the rehabilitation of the individual. Reiman argues against the death penalty because it offers an extreme form of punishment for crimes that are rarely “conscious” in the mind of the criminal. This moderate form of retribution…

    • 1458 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Also, there must be a legal basis for the appeal such as alleged material error in the trial, despite not because the losing party did not agree with the verdict. If the defendant was convicted through the plea bargain then the right of appealing is demolished. Any convicted offenders are able to appeal their case based on the matter of law. When there is an appeal, the court reviews the case looking at the previous proceedings in the lower courts and will not consider new evidence. The appellate courts look at the record and the written briefs filed by the defendant and the prosecutor of the appeal.…

    • 1283 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Civil law and criminal law are a part of common law as the judges in civil and criminal court are bound to follow the previous case that upper court decided. Civil law which is known as private law are acts that govern relationship between individuals and related to the private rights and remedies. Civil law cases are tort case due to negligence of parties, probate, breach of contract, family matters, bankrupt of businesses and etc. Contrary, criminal law is known as public law are applied when is due to lack of care and negligence of the state that resulting as a harm to society welfare or safety. The differences between civil law and criminal law are as follows.…

    • 764 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    121), however, parts of a trial can be closed if there should be an undercover informant. One has the right to have an impartial jury, unbiased with a jury trial. The Sixth Amendment assures a specific location or venue as to where the crime was committed, the trial must take place within that location. A suspect has the right to know why they are being held. The defendant has the right to be present during the trial to confront the opposing witness.…

    • 452 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Burden Of Proof Analysis

    • 1249 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Burden of proof can be define as the duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or it can define which party bears this burden. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, who must demonstrate that the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her. (TheFreeDictionary.com, 2015) The burden of proof in deciding a case is beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law. However in civil law, the burden of proof in deciding a case is on the balance of probabilities. Lastly, criminal and civil law can be differentiated through the title of the cases.…

    • 1249 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    That being Persuasive and Binding. Persuasive precedent consists of the Obiter dicta reached in a lower courts that the higher courts may take into consideration, however not legally binding on that higher court. It is important to note that there must be objective similarities between the two cases for a higher court to take matters into consideration. R v. R [1992] 1 AC 599 is a clear example of spousal rape being permitted under common law made illegal. The judiciary through persuasive precedent made new law outside of parliament.…

    • 1215 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    They both originate from a dispute between two parties, they both have pretrial procedures, they both have discovery processes, and they are both brought before a judge and jury. The major differences between them is the requirement for more stringent efforts to prove a violation occurred in criminal cases, the discovery requirements, and the burden of proof required to establish guilt. The reason for this, is if found guilty of a criminal matter certain rights are taken away from the guilty party. For example, their freedom when incarcerated, right to vote, right to possess firearm, and the social stigmas associated with being a convicted…

    • 1256 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In some cases an act of omission can be a crime, but only when a person has legal duty to perform the omitted act, such as filing a tax return. State of Mind—A wrongful mental state, mens rea is also typically required to establish criminal liability. The mental state, or intent, is indicated in the applicable statute or law. Murder, for example, involves the guilty act of killing another human being, and the mental state is the desire, or intent, to take another’s life. When analyzing criminal law problems, students must always look for these two major elements: Guilty Mind and Guilty Act (mens rea) and (actus rea) 44: There are two areas of constitutional law students must know well in order to be successful on a constitutional law test.…

    • 1597 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays