Amazon.com Widgets

Should the different burdens of proof in criminal law vs civil law be made the same?

  • Yes, they should be the same.

    I believe that the different burdens of proof in criminal law vs civil law should be made the same. I think that it shouldn't matter if a case is about a criminal trial or a lawsuit. The burden of proof should always be the same. The law is the law, regardless fo what is on the line.

  • Yes, they should be.

    I do not know why the definitions of such laws differ between specific types of law. I think law in general needs to be more evidence based and rational as it is, and this is just yet another wrench thrown into the judicial system. Makes cases even more complex, and pointlessly so.

  • The burden of proof should be the came in criminal and civil law.

    The burden of proof should always be on that of the prosecution. This reinforces the idea that a man is innocent until proven guilty. If the burden of proof was on the defendant, the presumption is guilt. The state could accuse someone of something with no proof, and if the defendant had no proof otherwise, they are convicted. This is not justice.

  • There's a reason.

    No, the different burdens of proof in criminal law vs civil law should not be made the same, because there are good reasons for the different. We don't want someone convicted in a criminal trial unless we are almost sure that they are guilty. In civil law, we just want what we think is justice to prevail.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.