Civil Procedure - Differences Between Civil and Criminal Procedure

Differences Between Civil and Criminal Procedure

Criminal and civil procedure are different. Although some systems, including the English and French, allow private persons to bring a criminal prosecution against another person, prosecutions are nearly always started by the state, in order to punish the defendant. Civil actions, on the other hand, are started by private individuals, companies or organizations, for their own benefit. In addition, governments (or their subdivisions or agencies) may also be parties to civil actions. The cases are usually in different courts, and juries are not so often used in civil cases.

In Anglo-American law, the party bringing a criminal charge (that is, in most cases, the state) is called the "prosecution", but the party bringing most forms of civil action is the "plaintiff" or "claimant". In both kinds of action the other party is known as the "defendant". A criminal case against a person called Ms. Sanchez would be described as “The People v. (="versus", "against" or "and") Sanchez,” "The State (or Commonwealth) v. Sanchez" or " v. Sanchez" in the United States and “R. (Regina, that is, the Queen) v. Sanchez” in England. But a civil action between Ms. Sanchez and a Mr. Smith would be “Sanchez v. Smith” if it was started by Sanchez, and “Smith v. Sanchez” if it was started by Mr. Smith (though the order of parties' names can change if the case is appealed).

Most countries make a clear distinction between civil and criminal procedure. For example, a criminal court may force a convicted defendant to pay a fine as punishment for his crime, and the legal costs of both the prosecution and defence. But the victim of the crime generally pursues his claim for compensation in a civil, not a criminal, action. In France and England, however, a victim of a crime may incidentally be awarded compensation by a criminal court judge.

Evidence from a criminal trial is generally admissible as evidence in a civil action about the same matter. For example, the victim of a road accident does not directly benefit if the driver who injured him is found guilty of the crime of careless driving. He still has to prove his case in a civil action, unless the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies, as it does in most American jurisdictions. In fact he may be able to prove his civil case even when the driver is found not guilty in the criminal trial, because the standard to determine guilt is higher than the standard to determine fault. However, if a driver is found by a civil jury not to have been negligent, a prosecutor may be estopped from charging him criminally.

If the plaintiff has shown that the defendant is liable, the main remedy in a civil court is the amount of money, or "damages", which the defendant should pay to the plaintiff. Alternative civil remedies include restitution or transfer of property, or an injunction to restrain or order certain actions.

The standards of proof are higher in a criminal case than in a civil one, since the state does not wish to risk punishing an innocent person. In English law the prosecution must prove the guilt of a criminal “beyond reasonable doubt”; but the plaintiff in a civil action is required to prove his case “on the balance of probabilities”. Thus, in a criminal case a crime cannot be proven if the person or persons judging it doubt the guilt of the suspect and have a reason (not just a feeling or intuition) for this doubt. But in a civil case, the court will weigh all the evidence and decide what is most probable.