why would a prosecutor in a criminal case have a higher burden of proof than a plaintiff in a civil case?

Answer 1

I'm a prosecutor and the burden is higher for criminal cases because of the issues at stake. Not only is a criminal conviction more important than a monetary award in a civil case, but criminal convictions carry stigma, future job problems and of course, jail time or high fines or both.

The system was set up the way it was in order to protect people from an overbearing government and tyranny. Making me prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt ensures that the person isn't just convicted on the whim of a prosecutor or police officer. A jury must be CONVINCED that the person is guilty. That doesn't mean we have to prove someone guilty beyond all doubt or beyond a shadow of a doubt, just that there is no REASONABLE doubt that exists for a defendant's innocence.

In the one case I lost in front of a jury, I can tell you the exact second I lost the case. My victim of the assault actually stated, "I don't know, maybe my husband threw the punch" when in fact, we were trying to convict the person that beat both of them up.

I like the system and the burdens as they are. But keep in mind that people are people. Juries don't really care about "burdens." They will do what their gut tells them. That's my experience.

Answer 2

Burdens of proof come in three different flavors. There is "proof by a preponderance of the evidence," which means that, upon weighing the evidence offered by each side, the 'weightier' case win. The one with a greater quantity of quality evidence is the winner. This burden of proof applies when determining whether a civil verdict will be for plaintiff or defendant. It is also the burden of proof applied when deciding the admissibility of the evidence in any case. The next standard is "clear and convincing proof." This applies to certain limited circumstances, where more evidence than "more likely than not" is needed. For example, proceedings to terminate parental rights for permanent neglect require clear and convincing proof. The highest standard known to the law is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." This does not mean absolute certainty, it does not mean a conclusion that is free of all doubt whatsoever. It means a REASONABLE certainty, one that is free from reasonable doubts, one that a reasonable person would treat as sufficient to make a morally certain determination.

Answer 3

In a criminal case, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. This is because you want to make every effort to avoid sending innocent people to jail.

In a civil case, you only need to show proof by a preponderance of the evidence, which is a far cry from beyond a reasonable doubt.

Answer 4

Criminal Record Search Database : http://www.SearchVerifyInfos.com/Official

Answer 5

from watching legal shows on tv, i.e. Boston legal, the practices, he has to remove any reasonable doubts that juries might have.

Answer 6

because he has to remove reasonable doubt from the jury or judge.