Criminal Law
Criminal law involves prosecution by the government of a person for an act that has been classified as a crime. Civil cases, on the other hand, involve individuals and organizations seeking to resolve legal disputes. In a criminal case, the state, through a prosecutor, initiates the suit, while in a civil case the victim brings the suit. Persons convicted of a crime may be incarcerated, fined, or both. However, persons found liable in a civil case may only have to give up property or pay money, but are not incarcerated.
Punishments
In criminal law, a guilty defendant is punished by either (1) incarceration in a jail or prison, (2) fine paid to the government, or, in exceptional cases, (3) execution of the defendant: the death penalty. Crimes are divided into two broad classes: felonies have a maximum possible sentence of more than one year incarceration, misdemeanors have a maximum possible sentence of less than one year incarceration.
Criminal Litigation
In criminal litigation, the burden of proof is always on the state. The state must prove that the defendant is guilty. The defendant is assumed to be innocent; the defendant needs to prove nothing. (There are exceptions. If the defendant wishes to claim that he/she is insane, and therefore not guilty, the defendant bears the burden of proving his/her insanity. Other exceptions include defendants who claim self-defense or duress.)
In criminal litigation, the state must prove that the defendant satisfied each element of the statutory definition of the crime, and the defendant's participation, "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is difficult to put a valid numerical value on the probability that a guilty person really committed the crime, but legal authorities who do assign a numerical value generally say "at least 98% or 99%" certainty of guilt.
protections for criminal defendants
Anyone who has studied civics in the USA knows of a number of protections specified in the U.S. Constitution:
- No ex post facto law. Art. I, §9 and 10
If an act was lawful when it was performed, the performer can not be convicted of a crime as a result of a law enacted after the performance. - prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures". Amendment IV.
- prohibition of double jeopardy. Amendment V.
This protection takes two forms:- A defendant who is found "not guilty" of a more serious charge can not have a second trial on a lesser included offense. For example, if D is found "not guilty" on a charge of felony murder (e.g., incidental killing of someone during the commission of a felony, such as robbery), then D can not be tried for the underlying felony (e.g., robbery).
- The prosecution can not appeal a "not guilty" verdict. Of course, the criminal defendant can appeal a "guilty" verdict and an incarcerated criminal can file a "habeas corpus" writ.
- However, it is possible to try a defendant in criminal court and then try the same defendant again in civil court, for the same event. The most common example of such two trials is a criminal prosecution for homicide and then have a second trial for the same defendant for the tort of wrongful death: the most famous example of this situation is the cases of O.J. Simpson. While legal scholars carefully explain the distinction between criminal and civil law, the plain fact is that one can be tried twice for the same event. Another situation in which one can have two trials for the same event is a prosecution under state law (e.g., for assault and battery) in a state court, then a second prosecution in a federal court under federal statute (e.g., civil rights violation).
- prohibition against compelled self-incrimination. Amendment V
- the right to a speedy trial. Amendment VI
- the right to the assistance of counsel. Amendment VI, as interpreted in, among other cases, Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979); Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932).
Indigent defendants have the right to an attorney who is paid by the state, even during custodial questioning by police. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).