Burden Of Proof Analysis

1249 Words 5 Pages
Law can be classified into two parts which are criminal and civil law. There are a few elements that can differentiate between criminal and civil law. The first element is the definition of the law itself. As for criminal law, it can be identified as laws that regulate crimes or wrongs committed against the government. In criminal law, the case is filed by the government, usually referred to as the State and represented by a prosecutor, against a defendant. An individual can never file criminal charges against another person: an individual may report a crime, but only the government can file criminal charges in court. (Diffen.com, 2015)
For a civil law, it regulates disputes between two private parties. In other words, a civil law is a case
…show more content…
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. Generally, cases are printed accounts of law suits and trials of individuals accused of committing crimes which is an example of identifying a criminal law. As for civil law, cases are normally referred to by the names of parties. For example, Vinos v Marks and Spencer PLC (2000).
Courts hearing is usually a typical way to resolve a dispute. However, there are many other option that can be used in resolving conflicts and dispute. The most common option is the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) which is refers to a variety of processes that help parties resolve disputes without a trial. Typical ADR processes includes arbitration, mediation and conciliation. These processes are generally confidential, less formal, and less stressful than traditional court proceedings. (System,
…show more content…
This is because ADR procedure helps in reaching a resolution earlier and less in expenses than going to a court or traditional litigation. In fact, many courts suggested or required parties to carry out ADR process before going to trial. However, ADR also has their own disadvantages as this process depends on the willingness of the individuals to compromise. If one of the party is not willing to compromise, this process will resulted in not achieving any resolution. In my opinion, even there are a few disadvantages of the ADR process, I strongly believed that courts is not the only best way in resolving a dispute as there are many other option which is more effective and the results can bring more satisfaction to both parties such as ADR. Furthermore, Court proceedings are adversarial and about winning not losing, whereas ADR is about finding possible solutions to

Related Documents