View Poll Results: Should the requirement of proof in civil cases be raised?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 36.36%
  • Yes, but only under some circumstances

    0 0%
  • No

    7 63.64%
  • Other

    0 0%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Should the requirement for proof in civil cases be raised?

  1. #1
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Should the requirement for proof in civil cases be raised?

    Currently, it's easier to lose a civil court case than a criminal case. In a civil case is that the plaintiff must prove their case to a much less stringent degree than the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that criminal cases require. However, there are many situations where the consequences of losing a civil case can be worse than losing a criminal case.

    It seems odd that the requirements of proof are stronger in a civil case that could cost someone millions of dollars than in a criminal case that could result in them paying a few hundred dollar fine and getting a few months probation, since if forced to choose, most people would much prefer the latter.

    So would it be better to change it so that civil cases must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as well?
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  2. #2
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    22,193

    Re: Should the requirement for proof in civil cases be raised?

    I surely gives the jury more to work with. Helps take sheer emotion out of play.

  3. #3
    Sit Nomine Digna
    Carjosse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Montreal, QC, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,199

    Re: Should the requirement for proof in civil cases be raised?

    THe reason it exists in criminal cases is because you can end up with a result that suspends the rights of someone while a civil case does not. It would make civil cases last much longer aswell most likely.

  4. #4
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Should the requirement for proof in civil cases be raised?

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    Currently, it's easier to lose a civil court case than a criminal case. In a civil case is that the plaintiff must prove their case to a much less stringent degree than the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that criminal cases require. However, there are many situations where the consequences of losing a civil case can be worse than losing a criminal case.

    It seems odd that the requirements of proof are stronger in a civil case that could cost someone millions of dollars than in a criminal case that could result in them paying a few hundred dollar fine and getting a few months probation, since if forced to choose, most people would much prefer the latter.

    So would it be better to change it so that civil cases must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as well
    ?
    No. It would be better if everybody had contributory negligence laws though with joint and several liability.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Should the requirement for proof in civil cases be raised?

    The difference is that, in criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the defense. Also, it's not a black or white issue. Usually it's to determine the level/percentage of culpability on the shoulders of the defense.

    It probably could use some reform.

  6. #6
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: Should the requirement for proof in civil cases be raised?

    Personally, I believe the concept of double jeopardy should be expanded so that a person tried and acquited in a criminal court cannot then be sued in a civil court for the same "offense". Likewise, if one level of government tries a defendant and that defendant is found not guilty, that defendant should not be subjected again to a trial at a different level of government for the same "offense".
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Should the requirement for proof in civil cases be raised?

    I would just like two reforms,

    1) Loser pays
    2) Attorneys get paid an hourly rate not a percentage.

    Done.


    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    Currently, it's easier to lose a civil court case than a criminal case. In a civil case is that the plaintiff must prove their case to a much less stringent degree than the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that criminal cases require. However, there are many situations where the consequences of losing a civil case can be worse than losing a criminal case.

    It seems odd that the requirements of proof are stronger in a civil case that could cost someone millions of dollars than in a criminal case that could result in them paying a few hundred dollar fine and getting a few months probation, since if forced to choose, most people would much prefer the latter.

    So would it be better to change it so that civil cases must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as well?

  8. #8
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Should the requirement for proof in civil cases be raised?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    The difference is that, in criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the defense.
    That's not true. The burden of proof in a civil case is on the plaintiff.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  9. #9
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should the requirement for proof in civil cases be raised?

    No. What should be done is if a Plaintiff loses he/she/they/it should have to pay the attorney fees and all costs of court and litigation of the Defendant(s). If you file a lawsuit for which you can't prove that it is at least 51% likely you are in the right you should pay all costs of the person you were using the court system to harass.

  10. #10
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Should the requirement for proof in civil cases be raised?

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    Currently, it's easier to lose a civil court case than a criminal case. In a civil case is that the plaintiff must prove their case to a much less stringent degree than the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that criminal cases require. However, there are many situations where the consequences of losing a civil case can be worse than losing a criminal case.

    It seems odd that the requirements of proof are stronger in a civil case that could cost someone millions of dollars than in a criminal case that could result in them paying a few hundred dollar fine and getting a few months probation, since if forced to choose, most people would much prefer the latter.

    So would it be better to change it so that civil cases must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as well?
    I say yes the standards for civil cases should be beyond a reasonable doubt just like a criminal court of law.The standards in a civil case are "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely than not). Which is a lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •