1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
pentagon [3]
3 years ago
13

In your opinion, should civil and criminal cases require the same amount of proof? Why?

History
1 answer:
olchik [2.2K]3 years ago
6 0
<span>Crimes are considered offenses against the state, or society as a whole. That means that even though one person might murder another person, murder itself is considered an offense to everyone in society. Accordingly, crimes against the state are prosecuted by the state, and the prosecutor (not the victim) files the case in court as a representative of the state. If it were a civil case, then the wronged party would file the case.Criminal offenses and civil offenses are generally different in terms of their punishment. Criminal cases will have jail time as a potential punishment, whereas civil cases generally only result in monetary damages or orders to do or not do something. Note that a criminal case may involve both jail time and monetary punishments in the form of fines.The standard of proof is also very different in a criminal case versus a civil case. Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). The difference in standards exists because civil liability is considered less blameworthy and because the punishments are less severe.Criminal cases almost always allow for a trial by jury. Civil cases do allow juries in some instances, but many civil cases will be decided by a judge.A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to an attorney, and if he or she can't afford one, the state must provide an attorney. A defendant in a civil case is not given an attorney and must pay for one, or else defend him or herself.The protections afforded to defendants under criminal law are considerable (such as the protection against illegal searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment). Many of these well known protections are not available to a defendant in a civil case.</span>

 

In general, because criminal cases have greater consequences - the possibility of jail and even death - criminal cases have many more protections in place and are harder to prove.

The Same Conduct Can Produce Civil and Criminal Liability

Although criminal and civil cases are treated very differently, many people often fail to recognize that the same conduct can result in both criminal and civil liability. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of this is the OJ Simpson trial. The same conduct led to a murder trial (criminal) and a wrongful death trial (civil). In part because of the different standards of proof, there was not enough evidence for a jury to decide that OJ Simpson was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the criminal murder case. In the civil trial, however, the jury found enough evidence to conclude that OJ Simpson wrongfully caused his wife's death by a "preponderance of the evidence".

You might be interested in
7. Describe a specific situation where the principle of checks and balances could
meriva

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

A specific situation where the principle of checks and balances could be used for the good of the people would be the following.

When the President of the United States sends a bill to the US Congress, thinking that would benefit the economy of the country. For instance, a new tax. When the bill gets to Congress, the House of Representatives decides that this bill is no good for the American people and that is biased to benefit just a political group or the President's Party. Then Congress did not pass the new bill proposed by the executive branch.

Or it could be the other way around. That the President receives a law from the legislative branch and the President considers it is biased to benefit a political group. Then the President exerts his power to veto the law.

The system of checks and balances has been one of the best things implemented by the framers of the Constitution. It guarantees that none of the three branches of the federal government has more power over the other two.

6 0
3 years ago
16.
Ne4ueva [31]
The answer is D, Jonas Edward Salk!
7 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What did the caning of charles summer in congress hightlight?
koban [17]
The caning of Charles Sumner highlighted sectional tensions between the North and the South.
8 0
3 years ago
How has the development of agricultural technologies
Anna11 [10]

Answer:

C. Increased food production has supported larger workforces in the manufacturing and service sectors.

Explanation:

I received a 90% on this test, and it seems the most feasible option.

Every other answer for the test is in the .txt file attached to this answer :)

DATE ANSWERED: 5/12/2021

6 0
3 years ago
What was significant about the growth of Christianity
Zielflug [23.3K]
Beginning with the son of a Jewish carpenter, the religion was spread around the world first by Jesus's disciples, then by emperors, kings, and missionaries. Through crusades, conquests, and simple word of mouth, Christianity has had a profound influence on the last 2,000 years of world history.

It took 4 centuries for Christianity to take hold in Rome, and about 10 to fully take hold throughout the European/Western world.

Christianity was the religion of the dispossessed before Constantine. It was popular among the slaves, former slaves, immigrants, and refugees in the Roman empire; the people legally or effectively barred from being full citizens. It validated their existence and struggles in a way that Roman paganism did not.

The Roman pagan religion operated very differently than we today understand the reason for religions to be. Keeping the pagan religion was kind of like paying insurance premiums. You gave tribute to the various gods, usually you favored one or two of them. In return they would see to it that you'd be protected from bad fortune, which was usually brought about by the vissitudes of other gods. You didn't “worship” those gods in the way we conceive of worshipping in Christianity or Islam today. You paid dues.

The pagan religion glorified wealth. The wealthier you were, the more ostentatious your displays for the gods were supposed to be. Giving to the gods meant doing things like putting on circuses or gladiator games if you were rich. Putting on an annual feast for your neighborhood if you were less rich, etc..

The pagan religion did not focus on personal behavior or comportment; it hardly addressed that at all.

Rather, it concerned itself with process. Did you pray to the right god for the right thing at the right time with the right words? If a storm ruined your crop, it was because you must have not prayed quite right a couple weeks ago. The insurance company won't pay out if you didn't fill out the right claim form or buy the right policy.

Putting on a feast or building a bathhouse meant you pleased the gods, and your wealth was a sign you were doing everything right in life. You were supposed to display that. If you were not wealthy or at least affluent, you were not of much value.

Christianity turned that on its head and said that the rich are actually in spiritual danger because of their misplaced priorities. It said that liars, hypocrites, cheaters & debauchers would have to answer in the next world to a higher authority, one that knew what was truly in their heart.

For Christianity, small, not publicly seen values were what mattered, like humility, diligence, steadfastness, faithfulness, forgiveness. What was in your heart mattered. Regardless of who you were or what you could do in this world, it all paled in comparison to the faith in your heart, proof to the authority in the next world that you were the one who was right all along. That would be rewarded with something beyond the ken of worldly goods and concerns.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the dispossessed people in the Empire would be attracted to a religion that valued them.
4.6K viewsView 39 Upvoters
Related Questions (More Answers Below)
7 0
4 years ago
Other questions:
  • Taugh that people should put family and community needs above their own
    6·2 answers
  • In 1908, the Supreme Court ruled in Muller v. Oregon that
    12·1 answer
  • Which describes a reform of the 1820s that made voting easier ?
    12·1 answer
  • The term melting pot accurately describes which of the following?
    11·2 answers
  • The amendment states that if you are born in the US you are a citizen of the US. True or false ?
    11·1 answer
  • Can the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan be considered part of the Cold War?
    10·1 answer
  • How did the segregationist sheriff respond to the demonstrations
    6·1 answer
  • How was geography important to the development of anchent civilizations
    11·1 answer
  • What was Europe’s response to the frivolity of the roaring twenties
    10·1 answer
  • Americans responded to the Second Great Awakening by-
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!