Should the requirement for proof in civil cases be raised?

[molten_dragon]

Currently, it's easier to lose a civil court case than a criminal case. In a civil case is that the plaintiff must prove their case to a much less stringent degree than the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that criminal cases require. However, there are many situations where the consequences of losing a civil case can be worse than losing a criminal case.

It seems odd that the requirements of proof are stronger in a civil case that could cost someone millions of dollars than in a criminal case that could result in them paying a few hundred dollar fine and getting a few months probation, since if forced to choose, most people would much prefer the latter.

So would it be better to change it so that civil cases must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as well?

 

[WCH]

I surely gives the jury more to work with. Helps take sheer emotion out of play.

 

[Carjosse]

THe reason it exists in criminal cases is because you can end up with a result that suspends the rights of someone while a civil case does not. It would make civil cases last much longer aswell most likely.

 

[Fisher]

Currently, it's easier to lose a civil court case than a criminal case. In a civil case is that the plaintiff must prove their case to a much less stringent degree than the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that criminal cases require. However, there are many situations where the consequences of losing a civil case can be worse than losing a criminal case.

It seems odd that the requirements of proof are stronger in a civil case that could cost someone millions of dollars than in a criminal case that could result in them paying a few hundred dollar fine and getting a few months probation, since if forced to choose, most people would much prefer the latter.

So would it be better to change it so that civil cases must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as well?

No. It would be better if everybody had contributory negligence laws though with joint and several liability.

 

[Gipper]

The difference is that, in criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the defense. Also, it's not a black or white issue. Usually it's to determine the level/percentage of culpability on the shoulders of the defense.

It probably could use some reform.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Personally, I believe the concept of double jeopardy should be expanded so that a person tried and acquited in a criminal court cannot then be sued in a civil court for the same "offense". Likewise, if one level of government tries a defendant and that defendant is found not guilty, that defendant should not be subjected again to a trial at a different level of government for the same "offense".

 

[CalGun]

I would just like two reforms,

1) Loser pays
2) Attorneys get paid an hourly rate not a percentage.

Done.

Currently, it's easier to lose a civil court case than a criminal case. In a civil case is that the plaintiff must prove their case to a much less stringent degree than the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that criminal cases require. However, there are many situations where the consequences of losing a civil case can be worse than losing a criminal case.

It seems odd that the requirements of proof are stronger in a civil case that could cost someone millions of dollars than in a criminal case that could result in them paying a few hundred dollar fine and getting a few months probation, since if forced to choose, most people would much prefer the latter.

So would it be better to change it so that civil cases must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as well?

 

[molten_dragon]

The difference is that, in criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the defense.

That's not true. The burden of proof in a civil case is on the plaintiff.

 

[joko104]

No. What should be done is if a Plaintiff loses he/she/they/it should have to pay the attorney fees and all costs of court and litigation of the Defendant(s). If you file a lawsuit for which you can't prove that it is at least 51% likely you are in the right you should pay all costs of the person you were using the court system to harass.

 

[jamesrage]

Currently, it's easier to lose a civil court case than a criminal case. In a civil case is that the plaintiff must prove their case to a much less stringent degree than the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that criminal cases require. However, there are many situations where the consequences of losing a civil case can be worse than losing a criminal case.

It seems odd that the requirements of proof are stronger in a civil case that could cost someone millions of dollars than in a criminal case that could result in them paying a few hundred dollar fine and getting a few months probation, since if forced to choose, most people would much prefer the latter.

So would it be better to change it so that civil cases must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as well?

I say yes the standards for civil cases should be beyond a reasonable doubt just like a criminal court of law.The standards in a civil case are "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely than not). Which is a lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Absolutely not. Civil cases are basically two sides in a dispute, though some are people skipping out on a contract for gain instead of an actual dispute. In the case of skipping out on a contract it would be pretty easy to prove a case to criminal levels. For disputes it's insane. Why should the side that's defending get a huge advantage?


Obviously civil cases don't go on your criminal record, either. No baggage to carry around forever.