Criminal vs Civil Law what

amen

makes a crime a Criminal matter vs a Civil matter?

Antisocialiser

amen wrote: »

makes a crime a Criminal matter vs a Civil matter?

The clue is in the question. Criminal relates to crimes whereas civil relates to civil wrongs.

Sala

Criminal prosecutions are taken by the State (DPP) whereas Civil cases are taken by an individual against another individual (or organisations etc).

A civil action arises where a private party feels they have been wronged by another and seeks redress. A criminal act is more a wrong against society as a whole.

The burden of proof in criminal cases is higher.

Procrastastudy

Murder, rape, assault and burglary etc are Criminal offences

Personal injury, copyright infringement and defamation are all Civil offences.

However let's say you are assaulted - the DPP would take the case on the criminal side in order to punish the perpetrator but you may then wish to take a case against them for compensation - this would be a civil case. The purpose of the criminal system is to punish the offender where the civil system is to put you back into the position you were in - therefore damages are not seen as punishing the offender but compensating the victim.

As already has been stated the proof in a Criminal mater is much higher - so its possible for someone to be acquitted of the criminal charge but still be found liable for the civil side.

Civil law is also used in a different context when referring to the legal systems of a country. Ireland is a Common law country like most of the English speaking world. Most of mainland Europe is a Civil law meaning their law are general codified rather than taken from cases.

Obviously there is more detail to all of this but hopefully gives you a bit of an overview.

amen

hmm. What I am really more interested in is why for instance if a person commits a serious crime such as murder, fraud etc why that is considered to be a criminal act (is it as simple as society saying that the behaviour damages society as whole and thus should be punished by the state for the good of society) while supplying a medicine (from say a legitimate drug manufacture) that causes damage/death may be a civil matter even though many more people may have been affected than by the drug then the single person affected by a murder?

Procrastastudy

You may gain some enlightenment form looking at Actus Reus v Mens Rea.

Interestingly I was at a lecture where someone suggested under Brehon law the two would have be punished similarly. That is you would be able to make amends to the family for killing the person by payment in a similar way to compensation.

johnnyskeleton

amen wrote: »

hmm. What I am really more interested in is why for instance if a person commits a serious crime such as murder, fraud etc why that is considered to be a criminal act (is it as simple as society saying that the behaviour damages society as whole and thus should be punished by the state for the good of society) while supplying a medicine (from say a legitimate drug manufacture) that causes damage/death may be a civil matter even though many more people may have been affected than by the drug then the single person affected by a murder?

The latter could also be an offence ie murder. As to why it might or might not be prosecuted, that's a matter for the dpp

Victor

amen wrote: »

hmm. What I am really more interested in is why for instance if a person commits a serious crime such as murder, fraud etc why that is considered to be a criminal act (is it as simple as society saying that the behaviour damages society as whole and thus should be punished by the state for the good of society) while supplying a medicine (from say a legitimate drug manufacture) that causes damage/death may be a civil matter even though many more people may have been affected than by the drug then the single person affected by a murder?

As mentioned, Actus Reus v Mens Rea - what was the intention of the person supplying the drug? I think with one of the recent swine flu vaccines, there was a side effect of a severe nervous tick that affected a few dozen people out of millions who had received the vaccine. On balance, it is better that those few dozen are ill, rather than tens of thousands of people dead from the swine flu. Now, it is not as simple as saying X people ill (from the vaccine) is better than Y people dead - the developer / manufacturer of the vaccines and the authorities that approve them need to minimise the side effects, by identifying the high risk groups that have adverse side effects and recommending that they receive an alternative treatment.

There are many types of flu, some affect people, some don't, some are harsh, some are mild. Notably, the dominant forms of flu vary from year to year and new forms evolve. Imagine there is a new avian flu next year and a vaccine is developed. Based on past performance, category A (say people who ate beetroot) may have adverse reactions to certain types of avian flu vaccines and this is confirmed to be so in tests with this new vaccine. However, with this new vaccine, they suddenly discover that category B (maybe smokers) may over time have a severe side effect, but it can only be discovered months after the vaccine is administered. However, lets us say, the manufacturer comes out with claims that there are no side effects and that it is suitable for all, despite knowing it isn't. Thsi manufacturer does this out of purely financial motives.

The manufacturer would be charged with deliberately harming category A patients, but not category B patients. Separately, the category B patients might sue the manufacturer for selling a defective product, but that wouldn't be guaranteed to succeed as smokers are particularly prone to flu.