Why do we have to distinguish between civil and criminal law?

Question

I see it as the same, for example the punishment - compensation and imprisonment. Can a law involve two punishments?? Shut up! I;m dumb :(

so does it mean we can opt for the right punishment?

Answer 1

No, its not a dumb question. It's a great question!! Believe me I know college educated people who don't know the difference.
For one criminal law has to do more with the act of the crime. It doesn't involved punitive damages. The person have to be proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Where as with civil law, it is more for money. The person only has to be proven guilty by a preponderance of evidence.
OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a criminal trial because they could not prove his guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
However in a civil suit he was found guilty by a preponderance of the evidence.
Remember it's through asking question that we learn.

Answer 2

The standard of proof for a criminal case is higher, beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof for a civil case is usually preponderance of the evidence. Additionally, you cannot be imprisoned in a civil case, only provide compensation.
Criminal cases involve the risk, if convicted, of loss of freedom, i.e. jail or prison. No such risk exists for a civil trial.

Answer 3

You're right - it's foolish to have them both seperately.
The criminal should be found guilty, imprisoned and fined & made to return all that was stolen all in one move - there is too much slow-motion multi-court waste of time and money in society.

Answer 4

Yes most notably is fraud cases, you may be imprisoned and then ordered to make restitution all in one trial.

Answer 5

also criminal law is decided by legislation and civil law is decided by case histories (usually)

Answer 6

Its so that you dont get thrown on jail when your library books are late. A fine makes much more sense.