Civil vs. Criminal law: What’s the difference and why it matters 

Law is a nuanced subject with vast webs of complications and intricacies that to the average person can be like being thrown overboard into a sea of information. So when we ask the simple question of what actually is important for the average person to know about the law, there are many answers. In my opinion, the most important is the difference between Civil and Criminal law. I say this for the very simple reason that this is the most likely question that one day you might have to face. 

Most crimes tend to have both civil and criminal elements simultaneously. So if you break into someone's home, the criminal element would be violating Section 9 of the theft act of 1968. This may come with jail or prison time and in court would be prosecuted by someone from Crown Prosecution service. These are the lawyers that work for the government in conjunction with the police to build a case and prosecute our hypothetical burglar. These cases will fall be named using the letter R which for the King is Rex and Regina for the queen. Then whoever the crown is prosecuting will have used their surname so for example if the case was against John Parker then the name of the case would be the Crown v Parker. 

The civil element will always be between two parties/companies not involving the government. A great example of where civil law comes into play is trespassing on private property. If a person trespasses on private property then the owner of that property can sue that individual. Most likely punishment would be a fine which tends to always be the outcome for civil cases. Tort law is all encompassing from corporate espionage to defamation. 

Now that the complications have occurred, I have used defamation as an example of tort law. However, that isn’t strictly true, depending on where you live, as in Italy, defamation can be treated as a criminal offence. However, in the UK it's solely a Criminal offence. So, as with anything with law, this division can be convoluted and dependent on a variety of factors. The simplest way of explaining it is that if it's the government prosecuting, it's criminal, and if it's another party or company prosecuting, it's civil law.

Beyond the prosecutor, there is a major difference between Criminal and Civil law. That is the burden of proof required for prosecution. Burden of proof is the requirement to prove an assertion or claim to get a conviction. For criminal cases, the burden of proof tends to be higher as it involves someone's entire way of life, or in certain areas, it can involve a person's actual life. Most times for a criminal conviction, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty to have a chance of conviction. In civil cases, the burden of proof is much lower, as it usually solely involves remedying a situation financially. This means there is a substantially higher probability involved in the cases. 

A great example that illustrates how different the two types of law are is the case of O.J. Simpson. Though his famous criminal case led to him being acquitted of the crimes before, a separate civil case found him guilty of wrongful death. Wrongful death is when someone is found to be responsible for causing someone's death due to negligence or intentional action. So with the same set of facts, how did these jurors come to separate conclusions? 

Well, for starters, the case of Rufo v Simpson is fundamentally different from the original criminal case, as the defence by Simpson’s lawyers was one based on race. They accused the police department of being racially motivated to prosecute Simpson for the crime. In addition to a defense that played to the emotions of the jurors, there was a lack of forensic evidence, which would later be present at the civil case. And this is with the burden of proof being less. The civil case produced a different verdict because they had a different narrative presented to them. The criminal case was one of a racist police department hunting down Simpson for a crime they could not prove he committed, while the civil case was a husband with a history of beating his wife, who had shown signs of aggression previously in the day, brutally murdering two people. Now the picture of how two different verdicts came to be can be quite clear. 

In conclusion, law as always is diverse and when considering why we separate the regions of law; some are quite clear such as the who and the what while other differences can be quite minor. The most important aspect is what can the average person take away from this and utilise in their lives. For the most part, we will at some point come into contact with the law whether that be as the prosecuted or prosecutor. It important to ensure you stayed informed of your rights and to protect yourself its fundamental to have some understanding of the law.