• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the requirement for proof in civil cases be raised?

Should the requirement of proof in civil cases be raised?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 22.2%
  • Yes, but only under some circumstances

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 7 77.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    9

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,240
Reaction score
4,865
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
30,944
Reaction score
9,014
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I surely gives the jury more to work with. Helps take sheer emotion out of play.
 

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
14,433
Reaction score
6,178
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
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

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,635
Reaction score
20,383
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
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

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,240
Reaction score
4,865
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
61,118
Reaction score
21,590
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,511
Reaction score
16,300
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
10,016
Reaction score
3,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 
Top Bottom