Is it fair to be acquitted of a criminal charge and then found guilty in a civil court of the same charge?

Answer 1

the standard of proof in a civil trial and a criminal trail is VERY different!
the former requires a mere balance of probabilities(which means if a party proves a case to 51%, he wins it) and the latter requires beyond reasonable doubt(which means nothing less than 99%)!
therefore, logically thinking, if you get acquitted for a civil trial , there is NO possibility of being convicted for a criminal charge but the reverse is not true!

Answer 2

Absolutely it's fair.

A criminal trial can drop lesser charges in favor of the more serious ones. This gives the district attorney some leverage in negotiating a guilty plea and usually more of a bargaining chip in terms of punishment. However, mistakes can be made in any criminal trial by either side if the case is carried out and tried to the verdict.

A civil trial normally follows, and can have an opposite outcome for many reasons. In most cases where the criminal trial failed, civil lawsuits by the "plantiff" will focus on different charges. These accusations are normally related to some sort of BREACH OF CONTRACT involving two or more parties including the plantiff. The breach can be a result of intentional or unintentional torts, negligence, or libel.

So even though a criminal case says the person is not guilty of murder, for example, that person might be found guilty in a civil court for being negligent to "protect/save/watch after" the person who was murdered. This is a crude example, but you get the point.

You must separate the two types of law in your mind seeing one as a private dispute and the other as a public offense against the state.

Answer 3

First, one is not found "guilty" of anything in a civil trial. One is found liable.

Second, of course it is fair. There are different things at stake. Criminal trials are not usually concerned with making sure victims get repaid, so a civil lawsuit is the only way this can usually happen. If the victim can successfully prove their case in civil trial, it would be grossly unfair to deny them their remedy, wouldn't it?

The reason for the different results, by the way, is because the two kinds of trial require two different kinds of proof. To convict someone of a crime, the jury has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. To choose a winner in a lawsuit, though, a jury usually only has to believe one side more than the other. It is easier to win a lawsuit than to convict someone of a crime, because a lawsuit might cost some money but a conviction can cost a person his freedom or even his life. A prosecutor might fail to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt, but a plaintiff's attorney may be able to convince a jury by a simple preponderance of the evidence in the same situation.

Answer 4

It is very fair the following reason. Because a criminal conviction has a major impact on ability to work and to live in society, the "burden of proof" is very strict and requires there to be no doubt possible. A civil penalty is about redressing the balance between the parties and therefore works on a lesser burden of proof - what is called the balance of probabilities. Thus "not guilty" in English law includes the Scottish law concept of "not proven" - it is not necessarily proof of innocence only of inability to prove guilt. If a civil court decides that damage was caused at least the injured person gets some recompense.

Answer 5

In my opinion, no. It comes much too close, in my opinion, to double jeopardy (which is banned by the constitution).

Once a person is found not guilty of a crime, they should not be re-tried and punished in another court, regardless of whether that court is criminal or civil.

Especially not in cases where the civil court judgment is capable of bankrupting the person who has been found not guilty. Civil courts were designed to handle relatively harmless cases such as auto accident fender-benders and disputes over property lines. So the rules of these courts are deliberately lax - you need very little evidence to find a person guilty in a civil court, because the issues at hand are supposed to be minor ones. They were never designed to handle rape & murder. Of late, however, there has been an unfortunate trend towards re-trying criminal cases in a civil court. So you have people who have been found not guilty by a jury of their peers (who are supposed to then have a presumption of innocence), yet who can find themselves being robbed of every penny they have ever earned (and ever will earn) for the very same offense (of which they were found not guilty), by a civil jury which is allowed to base their decision on relatively little evidence.

They can be severely punished (economically) for a crime that a jury ruled they never committed. And to me, that clearly violates the spirit of the Constitution.

Answer 6

Fair has nothing to do with the law.

The reason is that a criminal conviction requires a higher level of proof and thus is more difficult to get. I.e., "beyond a reasonable doubt", as opposed to "a preponderance of the evidence" for a civil conviction.

As an aside, many people incorrectly interpret "beyond a reasonable doubt" to mean "beyond any possible doubt".

Answer 7

The burdens of proof are far different and probably for a good reason. The "state" has a very high burden of proof but an "individual" should not be held to the same standard as the state. For the individual can only win monetary rewards, but the state could end up taking away a lot of freedom (even life).

Answer 8

Yes, they have 2 different standards of proof!

In Criminal it is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, in Civil it is the preponderance of the evidence, which is"it is more likely than not" it happened! In other words, less than Clear and convincing used in some civil trials!

Preponderance is 50.00001% that a person proved their case!

Answer 9

Sometimes yes, the standard of proof is different. The prosecutor might have been unable to make solid criminal case for lack of evidence, that doesn't mean the person is actually innocent.

If your child were hit by a hit and run driver and nobody saw it, you'd see the other side of the coin.

Answer 10

Yes it is fair. double jepordy is you can not be tried for the same crime in a criminal trial.
OJ Simpson was found not guilty on the charges of murder. But then he was found guilty of muder in civil court.
Criminal trials are based on punishment
Civil trial is based on money " sueing"