Should a person be allowed to be found innocent in a civil case and guilty in a criminal case?

OK, not quibbling over terminology.





For a person to be found liable (that's the word) in a civil case, the burden of proof is preponderance of evidence. In other words, which side's story is more likely and better supported.





For a person to be found guilty in a criminal trial, the state needs to proof guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a more strict standard.





If someone is found criminally liable, the civil case should be easy to prove. But, of course, with juries, something can come up to sway the jurors. Because they are different court cases, they can have different results.Should a person be allowed to be found innocent in a civil case and guilty in a criminal case?
certainly. The simplest way is for the civil plaintiff not to show up or present any evidence. In that case, judgment would be for the defendant (that is not a finding that one is ';innocent.'; It is just a judgment that one doesn't have to pay any damages. Then, in the criminal trial, the prosecutor presents the evidence and the defendant is convicted. Double jeopardy applies only to criminal charges and the existence of the civil suit doesn't enter into it.Should a person be allowed to be found innocent in a civil case and guilty in a criminal case?
Yes. Depending on the severity of a criminal case, the charges of the criminal case may not be applicable to those of the civil case.





However, this is not a likely scenario - in a criminal case, the person must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, while in a civil case, the decision is not so concrete.
Well, I would say it depends on which case goes to court first. If the civil trial happens first, then I would say, yes, it would be possible you could be found not liable, then later, found guilty in criminal court. However, if you were found guilty in criminal court first, then a civil trial took place, your goose would probably be cooked in civil court, because you have already been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the action, which is much more than is needed to establish liability in civil court.
NO THEY SHOULD NOT


however, they should be able to be found guilty in civil case, but innocent in a criminal case.


the burden of proof is different in both cases


in a criminal case it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the person commited the crime, but in a civil case it is whether or not it was likely for the person to do it
No-one is found ';innocent'; or ';guilty'; in a civil case, because civil cases do not determine guilt or innocence.





A criminal case decides if someone is guilty of committing a crime. A civil case determines if someone owes someone else money. Different cases, different rules, different burden of proof.





Richard
Yes, different statutes (laws) and there is often different parameters that determine guilt and innnocence.








If you do not like the laws get to work and get them changed.



that is the way of your political law makers they should they be the ones to anwser this question are any of you on line to answer.My answer is NO
sure, they are separate matters in separate courts with separate standards of proof.
Yes.





And that is already possible under US law.