The Difference Between Criminal and Civil Law, Essay Example

What is the difference between Criminal Law and Civil Law?

The most seminal distinction within all law is that between civil law and criminal law. The purpose of criminal law is to protect society as a whole, as well as specific victims, from certain acts deemed to be dangerous and harmful (Gaines & Miller, 2011, p. 69). Criminal law also distinguishes between felonies, severe crimes that carry penalties of imprisonment and even death, and misdemeanors, less severe crimes that carry penalties of fines and/or imprisonment (pp. 71-72). Under criminal law, it is the state that prosecutes a suspect charged with committing a crime; if convicted, the defendant may be punished by imprisonment and/or fines (p. 69). Thus, the concern of criminal law is the guilt (or innocence) of the defendant (p. 69). By contrast, civil law consists of all other laws, and pertains to “disputes between private individuals and between entities” (p. 69). The concern of civil law is responsibility rather than guilt or innocence; thus, disputes pursued under civil law may pertain to contractual terms, property ownership, automobile accidents, etc. (p. 69). Typically, plaintiffs in civil lawsuits seek recompense in the form of monetary damages (p. 70).

Despite these differences, there are significant areas of congruence between civil law and criminal law. For example, both types of law utilize the concept of the burden of proof, although this concept is slightly different for each: under criminal law, the defendant must be found guilty from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; by contrast, under civil law, the defendant must be found responsible due to the preponderance of evidence (Gaines & Miller, 2011, p. 70). An important result of this is that it is generally far easier for a plaintiff to obtain monetary damages through a civil lawsuit than it is for the plaintiff to obtain a criminal conviction through a criminal lawsuit (p. 70).

What are the different types of sources of criminal law?

There are a number of sources of American criminal law. First of all, the origins of a great deal of modern American law lie with English common law, transplanted to the American colonies by English settlers (Carlan, Nored, & Downey, 2011, p. 3). This heritage has left a profound legacy on the American legal and juridical system: in essence, the English system of common law consisted of judicial rulings, made in accordance with established laws, customs, and judicial precedent (p. 4). Under the principle of stare decisis, or “let the decision stand”, the decisions of judges were preserved and used to guide future rulings (p. 4). After the American colonies gained their independence, they initially resorted to maintaining English common law, until the establishment of the U.S. Constitution granted the new states the power to abolish common law (p. 4).

A second source of criminal law is statutory law, which consists of statutes enacted by any of the legislative bodies of government (Gaines & Miller, 2011, p. 63). The U.S. Congress is responsible for federal statutes, while state legislatures are responsible for state statutes, and cities and counties pass local statutes as well (p. 63). The Model Penal Code, drafted by the American Law Institute from 1952-1962, establishes “the general principles of criminal responsibility and codifies specific offenses;” as such, it has had a significant impact on state statutes (p. 64).

A third source of criminal law is case law, a significant legacy of the common law tradition of judicial precedent (Regoli & Hewitt, 2010, p. 31). Case law is the result of judicial decisions on specific cases, and as such entails “interpreting existing law, looking at relevant precedent decisions, and making judgments about the legitimacy of the law” (p. 31). Fourthly, administrative law consists of the laws made by state and federal administrative agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and many others (p. 31).

Finally, constitutional law is established by the U.S. Constitution itself, as well as the constitutions of all 50 states (Regoli & Hewitt, 2010, p. 31). The national and state constitutions play a crucial role as arbiters of the law: specifically, laws passed by any state must be consistent with that state’s constitution and that of the nation, and laws passed by the federal government must be consistent with the U.S. Constitution (pp. 31-32). In addition to regulating the law, the constitutions of both the nation and of all 50 states play an important role in enshrining protections for the citizenry against potential abuses of the law (Carlan et al., 2011, p. 6).

What is the Actusreus and Mens reus? Please give an example.

Actus reus, or “guilty act”, is a crucial legal requirement for the definition of a crime: the criminal act itself (Carlan et al., 2011, pp. 10-11). Without this element, a person cannot be held accountable for a crime: likelihood and probability are not sufficient (p. 11). To fulfill the requirements of actus reus, the government must meet or exceed the burden of proof in order to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime (p. 11). Specifically, the government must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the presence of two key elements: corpus delicti and proximate cause (p. 11). Corpus delicti, or “body of the crime”, is the demonstration of both the occurrence of the crime, and that the accused was responsible (p. 11). Establishing proximate cause entails demonstrating that the crime caused the harm (p. 11).

Mens rea, meaning “guilty mind”, refers to the standard by which the defendant is judged in terms of intent: only if the defendant had criminal intent at the time of the crime is the defendant liable (Regoli & Hewitt, 2010, p. 34). Under the standard of mens rea, it is not enough that an individual broke a law to convict them of criminal liability: it must also be demonstrated that their actions were intentional (p. 34). In 1981, John Hinckley, Jr. made an attempt on the life of President Ronald Reagan; however, he was not found guilty due to insanity (Siegel, 2009, p. 146). However, under strict liability, an individual “may be held criminally responsible” even without criminal intent, e.g. bartenders who have been found responsible for intoxicated patrons (Regoli & Hewitt, 2010, p. 34).

What are the various types of defenses?

A defendant may seek to contest charges by means of any of a number of defenses, which broadly fall into two categories: 1) excuse defenses, which argue that the defendant was not responsible for the actions in question, and 2) justification defenses, which argue that the defendants’ actions were justified (Gaines & Miller, 2011, p. 80). Infancy is an important excuse defense, in cases wherein the accused is too young to be held accountable for their actions (p. 80). Other, more important excuse defenses include intoxication, insanity, and mistake (p. 80). Involuntary intoxication excuses defendants from criminal responsibility for actions that occurred as a result of intoxication (Regoli & Hewitt, 2010, p. 42). Another defense is duress, wherein the defendant argues that they were coerced to do a criminal act against their will (p. 42). The defense of entrapment is the claim that agents of the state, i.e. undercover law enforcement personnel, tricked or induced the defendant to commit a crime that they would not have otherwise been likely to commit (p. 42). Mistake may take two forms: mistake of law, wherein a defendant is unaware of the existence of a particular law and has a good reason for this ignorance, and mistake of fact, wherein the defendant made an honest mistake about a particular fact (p. 43). As Regoli and Hewitt explained, mistake of fact is a common defense for defendants accused of “selling alcohol to a minor or… committing statutory rape”: the accused may have had grounds for believing the minor to be of age, i.e. due to physical appearance (p. 43).

There are also the justification defenses, which consist of self-defense, defense of home and property, and consent (Samaha, 2005, p. 114). Self-defense is acceptable if defendants can establish the occurrence of three conditions that obtained in the situation: “They didn’t provoke the attack”; “They reasonably believed the attack was going to happen right then”, and “They used only enough force necessary to repel the attack” (p. 114). Of course, this doctrine can also apply to the defense of others (Regoli & Hewitt, 2010, p. 36). The law also protects individuals’ rights to defend homes and property by force against unwarranted intrusions (Samaha, 2005, p. 114). The defense of consent is the claim that the defendant is innocent, because the victim was a consenting party to the act (Regoli & Hewitt, 2010, p. 36). This defense is sometimes raised by defendants charged with theft or rape (p. 36).

Discuss the Insanity Defense and the role it plays in Criminal Trials.

The Insanity Defense warrants separate discussion: this defense argues that the defendant is not criminally responsible for their actions by reason of insanity (Regoli & Hewitt, 2010, pp. 37-38). Under the M’Naghten Rule, based on a famous English case from 1843, the defendant must prove that they “suffered from a ‘disease of the mind’ and, therefore, lacked a sufficient degree of reason to distinguish between right and wrong” (Regoli & Hewitt, 2010, p. 38). Under the irresistible impulse test of 1897, the defendant may be able to establish that they lacked self-control due to insanity (p. 38). The Durham rule, from Durham v. United States (1954), excuses criminal acts on the basis of “’mental disease or mental defect’”; this rule was reformed by the substantial capacity test of the Model Penal Code, which broadens the M’Naghten rule through an emphasis on the lack of “substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness)” of the action in question (pp. 38-39). Finally, under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, a response to Hinckley’s shooting of President Reagan, the burden of proof was shifted “from the prosecution to the defense”, such that the defendant must establish their lack of capacity to distinguish criminality (p. 39). Expert witnesses may testify regarding the mental condition in question and/or the condition of the defendant, but it is the responsibility of the judge or the jury to draw any conclusions regarding whether or not the defendants’ mental state contributed to the crime (p. 39).