Alright, I think this video gives a clearer difference between criminal and civil cases. Basically a Criminal case is where the state is charging the person with a crime. That person could go to jail, pay a fine, or be put on probation if the person is found guilty. In a civil case its a matter of right or wrong. A person sews another person or organization for some sort of matter of responsibility usually for money. The person that is getting sewed can't go to jail, but may have to pay some sort of compensation for damage done to the other person. An interesting thing I learned is that a person in a criminal case will at least get a public defender if they do not have enough money for a lawyer. In a civil case, you are responsible for yourself, so if you can't afford a lawyer, i guess you are representing yourself. In a criminal case you have to be found guilty without any reasonable doubt which is something that I think is right. Obviously back in the middle ages a lot of people got death penalty and other punishments just because of social status and things like that, but they may not have necessarily done anything wrong. SH345
I wanted to completely agree with you and say that I found your post to be very educating to a person that knows absolutely nothing about criminal and civil law after I read your comment and watched the video and saw that you seem to have learned a lot from the video including prior knowledge that you may have had about criminal and civil justice. MUSIC345
i feel like you broke down the subject perfectly and you basically covered all the main point that what proposed in this video. I agree that it does give a clear understanding about the video also and this helped me get a better understanding towards what was being said. WRITER345
This video is here to give the viewer a better understanding of what Criminal Cases and Civil Cases are, and the difference between them. A criminal case you would have to find a person guilty by proving a person guilty without any reason or thought that the person have any chance of being innocent. If the jury have any reason to believe that a defender is not guilty based on the evidence given or the lack of evidence given then more times than not the defender will be plead innocent. Also a criminal the case is started with an arrest. A civil case the defender have to plead their case to the judge and you would have to be fifty one percent. In a civil case the defender is not being held in jail when or if they lose the case. That’s one of the biggest differences between these two cases. MUSIC345
I understand and see your point with the two different kinds of cases. I also stated that in a criminal case you have to provide evidence of no reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. This video gave me a better understanding of the way cases are handled. K9 345
I feel this video is very helpful, that’s because it is tells you the differences in the Judicial system as far as how trails differentiate. It says a lot about how people are charged ad the process you will have to go through in a criminal and civil case. In a criminal case people can serve jail time and it’s harder to convict a person guilty of a crime; unlike a civil case where it’s fairly easy to convict a person and they would only be ordered to pay the person who has filed a lawsuit against them. I didn’t know that in a civil case you can represent yourself I thought that you’d always have a person to represent you or that you’d have to pay someone to represent you in a case. I think it’s not fair that people only need small amount of evidence to be proved guilty of something pertaining to a civil matter because it makes it easier for people to be wrongfully accused of an action that possibly didn’t commit. Though I thought this was a knowledgeable video I just don’t agree certain things being said. WRITER345
I definitely agree that they should make it harder to find someone guilty in a civil case. I did not know that you could represent yourself either, but knowing this I still do not believe I would because I am not yet quite educated on the law like an attorney would be. I agree that this video is very helpful. HRH345
I completely agree with you that they should make it more difficult to find someone guilty. They need a reasonable amount of evidence to prove someone guilty. I also didn't know that in civil cases you did not need a lawyer, but if you want one and cannot afford, I think they should still appoint you a government lawyer, but public defenders are only obtained in criminal cases. I thought this video was very helpful and useful. Tuck345
This video helps educate people who do not quite understand the difference between a civil case and a criminal case. It is very helpful with explaining the punishment between a criminal case and a civil case. I did not know that in a civil case you can not get appointed an attorney and that you have to figure out if you are going to hire an attorney or defend yourself. It was also nice that the guy in the video used numbers when explaining the proof you need for both cases. For instance, that in a criminal case they have to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt where in a civil case it could be a 49% to 51%. This video also helped me understand that for criminal cases you have to do an action or be arrested where as the civil cases any person can file at any time. HRH345
I agree with what you said about letting individuals know the differences between criminal cases and civil cases. A whole lot of people don't know that you won't have a public defender in a civil case. A lot of people didn't know that you would most likely have to defend yourself. Modified345
I really agree with your response to the video. It really does help someone with little to no background in the legal system. I also found the way he used numbers to help represent different information very useful and it also made his points more clear. Overall, great response. AUT345
I never knew that one in a civil case cannot have a lawyer or public defender. I didn't know they have to defend themselves as a defendant or a plaintiff. The video really explained some differences between these two types of cases. I still don't understand what happens if the person being sued does not have the income to pay the individual suing him/her. The man says that there is no jail time for persons in a civil case. Does that still apply for one who can't afford to pay their debt? I also feel that I knew a lot of what he was saying about criminal cases although I did not know the judge could make a jury acquit a person if there is not enough evidence. I always thought the jury made the decision as to whether or not the is enough evidence. Modified345
I really agree with your response. I also didn't know that in civil cases someone had to represent themselves. I also thought the jury made the decision no matter what and the judge just sentenced the defendant if they were found guilty. It surprised me to know that a judge can pretty much just throw out a jury's decision.
In this video I think that it tells us the facts of what is the difference between civil and criminal cases. It didn’t go into much detail about it just laid out the basics of it. One of the things it talked about was how we get to a case and its two different ways in a criminal case there has to be an arrest but in a civil case someone has to sue someone else for an unjust happening. Another thing is the kind of punishment after the sentencing in a criminal case there could be three things that could happen. The first one is jail or prison time the second is probation and the third is a fine. Also there could be multiple things. In a civil case there can only be a fine for the person who lost. The last thing is the burden of proof and in a criminal case there has to be absolute certainty and in a civil case there only needs to be a majority fifty-one percent. I believe that all these thing are fair but in time as the laws change and crimes change I think this will need to change to. K9 345
I completely agree with on the video giving the basics between the two courts. I like how you mentioned how the video discussed about how the case is presented and the punishments between each court. I agree with your last sentence as well about how time will change and how the laws will need to change too for it to continue to be fair. JoJo345
This video gave me a better understanding of the differences between criminal and civil courts. I felt the video broke down each court and explained the differences between the two in a very simple way. I learned that criminal courts have to prove the person is guilty with reasonable doubt. I completely agree with that reason because there should be plenty of evidence to prove someone is guilty. I thought it was interesting that in civil courts you have to at least have a 51% of evidence to win a case. I would have never thought that is all you need to win a case. The main difference I learned was how much evidence is needed to win a case as well as how much action had happened before the charge was made from the prosecutor. Overall, this video made some great points about the differences between a criminal and civil court. JoJo345
I completely agree that this video helped me to understand these differences better, and broke it down very simply. I liked how you pointed out that it is surprising that only fifty-one percent of evidence is needed to win a civil case. That is just really surprising to me I thought in all cases it was beyond a reasonable doubt. Tae Kwon Do Guy 345
In my point of view, this video gives a more clearer view on the differences between a criminal and civil case. A criminal case is where a prosecutor charges a person with a crime. They could either do jail time, get probation, or have to pay a fine, if that person is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.(Burden of proof) In a civil case, it is a matter of right and wrong. Action is started by the victim. The defendant does not have to do jail time, but he has to pay the victim with money as compensation. I found it odd that in criminal cases if you cannot afford a lawyer, a government lawyer (public defender) may be appointed to you. But in civil cases if you cannot afford a lawyer, that's on you to hire a lawyer or represent yourself because you are not entitled to a government lawyer. Tuck345
This clip brings to light the general differences between criminal and civil cases within the justice system. A civil case is basically a case in which an individual has a reason (injury, compensation, complaint) files a case with the justice system. Differently, a criminal case is when a state, federal, or local prosecutor files a case. Usually this follows an arrest. This video does a great job at differentiating between the two. In my opinion it really helps someone with little to know legal background understand the basics of these two case types. Personally, before this class and video, I did not know there were two different case types and thought that everything fell under the same category. Also the determinism of a criminal case must provide absolute proof (evidence) for a conviction. Differently, a conviction in a civil case can only be determined with a majority 51% decision. All-in-all, this video possess valuable resources to the basics of these two case types. AUT345
This video did a good job describing the difference between criminal and civil courts. Something that I noticed is that when looking at the differences it can be seen that we hold criminal court to a higher standard. The most obvious indicator of this is the burden of truth. In civil court it is a preponderance of evidence, while criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt. It says something when in one as long as you can convince the jury fifty-one percent you can prove they are guilty but in the other it has to be one hundred percent. The other indicator is the fact that if you cannot afford an attorney in criminal court there will be one appointed to you, while in civil you must represent yourself if you can’t afford one. It just shows you how serious we take criminal court. We want you to have someone who can professionally defend you. Tae Kwon Do Guy 345
We really need to handle criminal law more harshly than we do civil law. I look at the world like a grade school. I find it is much more pressing to deal with bullies and cheaters than if someone called someone a name they didn't like. It is also much harder to prove someone criminally guilty, just on the fact that you have no story to go on sometimes. It just goes to show that we as people can't trust anyone else. Buc345
I agree to everything you said. It's obvious that we do hold criminal law to a higher standard and which in my opinion is great! Also the fact that we appoint lawyers in criminal law is also a great idea. This makes it fair for people that are actually innocent but can't afford an lawyer. This gives people the chance to be heard professionally. Often times people in higher occupations do not always take people with less education as seriously. And lastly you stated the 50 to 51 ratio in civil law. Verses being 100% in criminal law, these both are greatly explained. Great job, I enjoyed reading your entry. Ajones345
This video is a great tool in learning the types of cases. It helped me understand the differences between criminal cases and civil cases very well. It made it clear that criminal cases are started by a criminal action and with an arrest. A civil case is a person trying to sue someone or a place for a reward. Attorney Hayslett also outlined the details of the beyond a reasonable doubt concept. This was really helpful because he said that preponderance of the evidence could either go towards the defendant’s favor or the plaintiff’s favor. I really liked that he used the scale example because it showed that if the decision is just 1% beyond a reasonable doubt, someone can be convicted. Knowing that Hayslett is a practicing attorney also helped build his credibility and made me really pay attention to what he is saying. Overall, I enjoyed the video and felt like I really did learn from it.
I really enjoyed watching this video as it broke down the differences between civil law and criminal law. Watching this video I wrote down four differences that the instructor pointed out. The first point he made was that in criminal law there's prosecutors that charges a person with a crime, while in civil law it would be the victim. The second point he made was what could happen if found guilty. In criminal law you can go to jail, pay a fine, and receive probation. In civil law theres compensation (monetary awards). The third point he made was that in criminal law if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer the state would appoint one. In civil law the plaintiff have to pay for an lawyer or represent themselves. Last but not least the fourth point he made was obtaining the burden of proof. In criminal law it's beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil law its proponderance of evidence; 50 to 51 in other words with civil law it's a little bit more "lenient". I actually like the way both laws are set up, I also think both are fair. I Now fully understand the difference between the two laws. Thanks for the video! Ajones345
I agree with you but I do not like the fact that when in criminal cases a public defender will not fight as hard to prove the defendant is innocent like a hired lawyer would. I strongly believe that they do not do their job as a lawyer such as the much research that is need by the prosecutor the lawyer and (plaintiff in a civil case) the justice system is not fair to those who do not have the funds to better prepare themselves for a criminal case. Rebel345
While I do not find this interesting, I do appreciate the clarification between these two topics. Before reading about this in class I did not know all the little intricacies that were involved when it comes to separating these two ideals. I knew the separation, as the names are rather straight forward when it comes to putting them apart. In my own opinion, I hope we go deeper into the topic of criminal law, as it is what I am hoping to go into. I am not saying, however, that civil law with have no place in my studies. It is always important to know if a motive had been created in a lost case or if a lawyer had done something wrong in his case. It may also give a broader look on just what people will do when faced with what they feel is an injustice towards them. I can’t wait to delve deeper. Buc345
What's the difference between a civil case and a criminal case? This video touches upon helping someone understand the difference. A criminal case is when actions brought by an arrest then charge. Actions is started by a government lawyer, which we know as the prosecutor. The prosecutor is the only one to deicide if a case is filed or not. The have to prove the elements of the crime to a grand jury. If accused the defendant is intergent. Prosecutor must prove the defendant is guilty beyond and to the exclusions of any and all reasonable doubt. If convicted the defendant will be incarcerated and or probation and still have to pay court fees and fines. A civil case is when a victim file a civil law suite to another person. A government lawyer do not bring the charge, but a plaintiff can represent him/her self or hire their own lawyer. The plaintiff in order to win a 50/50 case has to preponderance of the evidence and must be 51% right in order to win against the defendant. The defendant if loses will not be incarcerated, but don't mean they do not have to pay a monetary award to plaintiff and must have to pay their own court fees once they are ruled by the judge. A civil case is not as meaningful as a criminal case there are no conviction or probation in a civil case but in both cases its always a judge to make the final decision. Rebel345
i can definitely tell you watched the video thouroughly and I like the way you resonded. referring to the 51 % was very important I mean because its the entire decisions basis. aphi345
After watching this video I see that there is a clear difference between civil and criminal trials and I will be able to make sure that I can see the difference. The 51% decision is a great way to get the best determination for guilt or innocence. I always thought that the separation of criminal and civil was clear but this video brought it down into detail. Overall the video was great.
I also found great interest in the video itself because of the repetitive confusion between civil and criminal trials. But I wish I heard more about civil even though I'm a criminal law student. Though there were missing things I enjoyed the detailed video . Aphi345
I agree with you. Everything was clear and out and the open I like how he explained everything I enjoyed the video I found everything good and lashay 345
I was interested in this. It tells someone who knows nothing about the criminal world something. It gives information that I only knew partially. I liked the way he made comparisons and explenations on all the little things he went over. Free Thinker 345
I agree people do need to know the difference between the two. I never these the difference between them too. I was interested in this because if you don't know he's explaining everything flat out and that's what I like. After watching this I now know the difference between both of them and I agree with it cause at first I thought they was the same both being brought to court and they was the same. I'm glad he explained it like that everything was clear and understandable. Lashay345
Now I get it. Natural012
ReplyDeleteAlright, I think this video gives a clearer difference between criminal and civil cases. Basically a Criminal case is where the state is charging the person with a crime. That person could go to jail, pay a fine, or be put on probation if the person is found guilty. In a civil case its a matter of right or wrong. A person sews another person or organization for some sort of matter of responsibility usually for money. The person that is getting sewed can't go to jail, but may have to pay some sort of compensation for damage done to the other person. An interesting thing I learned is that a person in a criminal case will at least get a public defender if they do not have enough money for a lawyer. In a civil case, you are responsible for yourself, so if you can't afford a lawyer, i guess you are representing yourself. In a criminal case you have to be found guilty without any reasonable doubt which is something that I think is right. Obviously back in the middle ages a lot of people got death penalty and other punishments just because of social status and things like that, but they may not have necessarily done anything wrong.
ReplyDeleteSH345
I wanted to completely agree with you and say that I found your post to be very educating to a person that knows absolutely nothing about criminal and civil law after I read your comment and watched the video and saw that you seem to have learned a lot from the video including prior knowledge that you may have had about criminal and civil justice.
DeleteMUSIC345
i feel like you broke down the subject perfectly and you basically covered all the main point that what proposed in this video. I agree that it does give a clear understanding about the video also and this helped me get a better understanding towards what was being said.
DeleteWRITER345
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei feel
ReplyDeleteThis video is here to give the viewer a better understanding of what Criminal Cases and Civil Cases are, and the difference between them. A criminal case you would have to find a person guilty by proving a person guilty without any reason or thought that the person have any chance of being innocent. If the jury have any reason to believe that a defender is not guilty based on the evidence given or the lack of evidence given then more times than not the defender will be plead innocent. Also a criminal the case is started with an arrest. A civil case the defender have to plead their case to the judge and you would have to be fifty one percent. In a civil case the defender is not being held in jail when or if they lose the case. That’s one of the biggest differences between these two cases.
ReplyDeleteMUSIC345
I understand and see your point with the two different kinds of cases. I also stated that in a criminal case you have to provide evidence of no reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. This video gave me a better understanding of the way cases are handled.
DeleteK9 345
I feel this video is very helpful, that’s because it is tells you the differences in the Judicial system as far as how trails differentiate. It says a lot about how people are charged ad the process you will have to go through in a criminal and civil case. In a criminal case people can serve jail time and it’s harder to convict a person guilty of a crime; unlike a civil case where it’s fairly easy to convict a person and they would only be ordered to pay the person who has filed a lawsuit against them. I didn’t know that in a civil case you can represent yourself I thought that you’d always have a person to represent you or that you’d have to pay someone to represent you in a case. I think it’s not fair that people only need small amount of evidence to be proved guilty of something pertaining to a civil matter because it makes it easier for people to be wrongfully accused of an action that possibly didn’t commit. Though I thought this was a knowledgeable video I just don’t agree certain things being said.
ReplyDeleteWRITER345
I definitely agree that they should make it harder to find someone guilty in a civil case. I did not know that you could represent yourself either, but knowing this I still do not believe I would because I am not yet quite educated on the law like an attorney would be. I agree that this video is very helpful.
DeleteHRH345
I completely agree with you that they should make it more difficult to find someone guilty. They need a reasonable amount of evidence to prove someone guilty. I also didn't know that in civil cases you did not need a lawyer, but if you want one and cannot afford, I think they should still appoint you a government lawyer, but public defenders are only obtained in criminal cases. I thought this video was very helpful and useful.
DeleteTuck345
This video helps educate people who do not quite understand the difference between a civil case and a criminal case. It is very helpful with explaining the punishment between a criminal case and a civil case. I did not know that in a civil case you can not get appointed an attorney and that you have to figure out if you are going to hire an attorney or defend yourself. It was also nice that the guy in the video used numbers when explaining the proof you need for both cases. For instance, that in a criminal case they have to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt where in a civil case it could be a 49% to 51%. This video also helped me understand that for criminal cases you have to do an action or be arrested where as the civil cases any person can file at any time.
ReplyDeleteHRH345
I agree with what you said about letting individuals know the differences between criminal cases and civil cases. A whole lot of people don't know that you won't have a public defender in a civil case. A lot of people didn't know that you would most likely have to defend yourself. Modified345
DeleteI really agree with your response to the video. It really does help someone with little to no background in the legal system. I also found the way he used numbers to help represent different information very useful and it also made his points more clear. Overall, great response. AUT345
DeleteI never knew that one in a civil case cannot have a lawyer or public defender. I didn't know they have to defend themselves as a defendant or a plaintiff. The video really explained some differences between these two types of cases. I still don't understand what happens if the person being sued does not have the income to pay the individual suing him/her. The man says that there is no jail time for persons in a civil case. Does that still apply for one who can't afford to pay their debt? I also feel that I knew a lot of what he was saying about criminal cases although I did not know the judge could make a jury acquit a person if there is not enough evidence. I always thought the jury made the decision as to whether or not the is enough evidence. Modified345
ReplyDeleteI really agree with your response. I also didn't know that in civil cases someone had to represent themselves. I also thought the jury made the decision no matter what and the judge just sentenced the defendant if they were found guilty. It surprised me to know that a judge can pretty much just throw out a jury's decision.
DeleteWrestler345
In this video I think that it tells us the facts of what is the difference between civil and criminal cases. It didn’t go into much detail about it just laid out the basics of it. One of the things it talked about was how we get to a case and its two different ways in a criminal case there has to be an arrest but in a civil case someone has to sue someone else for an unjust happening. Another thing is the kind of punishment after the sentencing in a criminal case there could be three things that could happen. The first one is jail or prison time the second is probation and the third is a fine. Also there could be multiple things. In a civil case there can only be a fine for the person who lost. The last thing is the burden of proof and in a criminal case there has to be absolute certainty and in a civil case there only needs to be a majority fifty-one percent. I believe that all these thing are fair but in time as the laws change and crimes change I think this will need to change to.
ReplyDeleteK9 345
I completely agree with on the video giving the basics between the two courts. I like how you mentioned how the video discussed about how the case is presented and the punishments between each court. I agree with your last sentence as well about how time will change and how the laws will need to change too for it to continue to be fair.
DeleteJoJo345
This video gave me a better understanding of the differences between criminal and civil courts. I felt the video broke down each court and explained the differences between the two in a very simple way. I learned that criminal courts have to prove the person is guilty with reasonable doubt. I completely agree with that reason because there should be plenty of evidence to prove someone is guilty. I thought it was interesting that in civil courts you have to at least have a 51% of evidence to win a case. I would have never thought that is all you need to win a case. The main difference I learned was how much evidence is needed to win a case as well as how much action had happened before the charge was made from the prosecutor. Overall, this video made some great points about the differences between a criminal and civil court.
ReplyDeleteJoJo345
I completely agree that this video helped me to understand these differences better, and broke it down very simply. I liked how you pointed out that it is surprising that only fifty-one percent of evidence is needed to win a civil case. That is just really surprising to me I thought in all cases it was beyond a reasonable doubt. Tae Kwon Do Guy 345
DeleteIn my point of view, this video gives a more clearer view on the differences between a criminal and civil case. A criminal case is where a prosecutor charges a person with a crime. They could either do jail time, get probation, or have to pay a fine, if that person is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.(Burden of proof) In a civil case, it is a matter of right and wrong. Action is started by the victim. The defendant does not have to do jail time, but he has to pay the victim with money as compensation. I found it odd that in criminal cases if you cannot afford a lawyer, a government lawyer (public defender) may be appointed to you. But in civil cases if you cannot afford a lawyer, that's on you to hire a lawyer or represent yourself because you are not entitled to a government lawyer.
ReplyDeleteTuck345
This clip brings to light the general differences between criminal and civil cases within the justice system. A civil case is basically a case in which an individual has a reason (injury, compensation, complaint) files a case with the justice system. Differently, a criminal case is when a state, federal, or local prosecutor files a case. Usually this follows an arrest. This video does a great job at differentiating between the two. In my opinion it really helps someone with little to know legal background understand the basics of these two case types. Personally, before this class and video, I did not know there were two different case types and thought that everything fell under the same category. Also the determinism of a criminal case must provide absolute proof (evidence) for a conviction. Differently, a conviction in a civil case can only be determined with a majority 51% decision. All-in-all, this video possess valuable resources to the basics of these two case types. AUT345
ReplyDeleteThis video did a good job describing the difference between criminal and civil courts. Something that I noticed is that when looking at the differences it can be seen that we hold criminal court to a higher standard. The most obvious indicator of this is the burden of truth. In civil court it is a preponderance of evidence, while criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt. It says something when in one as long as you can convince the jury fifty-one percent you can prove they are guilty but in the other it has to be one hundred percent. The other indicator is the fact that if you cannot afford an attorney in criminal court there will be one appointed to you, while in civil you must represent yourself if you can’t afford one. It just shows you how serious we take criminal court. We want you to have someone who can professionally defend you. Tae Kwon Do Guy 345
ReplyDeleteWe really need to handle criminal law more harshly than we do civil law. I look at the world like a grade school. I find it is much more pressing to deal with bullies and cheaters than if someone called someone a name they didn't like. It is also much harder to prove someone criminally guilty, just on the fact that you have no story to go on sometimes. It just goes to show that we as people can't trust anyone else.
DeleteBuc345
I agree to everything you said. It's obvious that we do hold criminal law to a higher standard and which in my opinion is great! Also the fact that we appoint lawyers in criminal law is also a great idea. This makes it fair for people that are actually innocent but can't afford an lawyer. This gives people the chance to be heard professionally. Often times people in higher occupations do not always take people with less education as seriously. And lastly you stated the 50 to 51 ratio in civil law. Verses being 100% in criminal law, these both are greatly explained. Great job, I enjoyed reading your entry. Ajones345
DeleteThis video is a great tool in learning the types of cases. It helped me understand the differences between criminal cases and civil cases very well. It made it clear that criminal cases are started by a criminal action and with an arrest. A civil case is a person trying to sue someone or a place for a reward. Attorney Hayslett also outlined the details of the beyond a reasonable doubt concept. This was really helpful because he said that preponderance of the evidence could either go towards the defendant’s favor or the plaintiff’s favor. I really liked that he used the scale example because it showed that if the decision is just 1% beyond a reasonable doubt, someone can be convicted. Knowing that Hayslett is a practicing attorney also helped build his credibility and made me really pay attention to what he is saying. Overall, I enjoyed the video and felt like I really did learn from it.
ReplyDeleteWrestler345
I really enjoyed watching this video as it broke down the differences between civil law and criminal law. Watching this video I wrote down four differences that the instructor pointed out. The first point he made was that in criminal law there's prosecutors that charges a person with a crime, while in civil law it would be the victim. The second point he made was what could happen if found guilty. In criminal law you can go to jail, pay a fine, and receive probation. In civil law theres compensation (monetary awards). The third point he made was that in criminal law if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer the state would appoint one. In civil law the plaintiff have to pay for an lawyer or represent themselves. Last but not least the fourth point he made was obtaining the burden of proof. In criminal law it's beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil law its proponderance of evidence; 50 to 51 in other words with civil law it's a little bit more "lenient". I actually like the way both laws are set up, I also think both are fair. I Now fully understand the difference between the two laws. Thanks for the video! Ajones345
ReplyDeleteI agree with you but I do not like the fact that when in criminal cases a public defender will not fight as hard to prove the defendant is innocent like a hired lawyer would. I strongly believe that they do not do their job as a lawyer such as the much research that is need by the prosecutor the lawyer and (plaintiff in a civil case) the justice system is not fair to those who do not have the funds to better prepare themselves for a criminal case. Rebel345
DeleteWhile I do not find this interesting, I do appreciate the clarification between these two topics. Before reading about this in class I did not know all the little intricacies that were involved when it comes to separating these two ideals. I knew the separation, as the names are rather straight forward when it comes to putting them apart. In my own opinion, I hope we go deeper into the topic of criminal law, as it is what I am hoping to go into. I am not saying, however, that civil law with have no place in my studies. It is always important to know if a motive had been created in a lost case or if a lawyer had done something wrong in his case. It may also give a broader look on just what people will do when faced with what they feel is an injustice towards them. I can’t wait to delve deeper.
ReplyDeleteBuc345
What's the difference between a civil case and a criminal case? This video touches upon helping someone understand the difference. A criminal case is when actions brought by an arrest then charge. Actions is started by a government lawyer, which we know as the prosecutor. The prosecutor is the only one to deicide if a case is filed or not. The have to prove the elements of the crime to a grand jury. If accused the defendant is intergent. Prosecutor must prove the defendant is guilty beyond and to the exclusions of any and all reasonable doubt. If convicted the defendant will be incarcerated and or probation and still have to pay court fees and fines. A civil case is when a victim file a civil law suite to another person. A government lawyer do not bring the charge, but a plaintiff can represent him/her self or hire their own lawyer. The plaintiff in order to win a 50/50 case has to preponderance of the evidence and must be 51% right in order to win against the defendant. The defendant if loses will not be incarcerated, but don't mean they do not have to pay a monetary award to plaintiff and must have to pay their own court fees once they are ruled by the judge. A civil case is not as meaningful as a criminal case there are no conviction or probation in a civil case but in both cases its always a judge to make the final decision. Rebel345
ReplyDeletei can definitely tell you watched the video thouroughly and I like the way you resonded. referring to the 51 % was very important I mean because its the entire decisions basis. aphi345
DeleteAfter watching this video I see that there is a clear difference between civil and criminal trials and I will be able to make sure that I can see the difference. The 51% decision is a great way to get the best determination for guilt or innocence. I always thought that the separation of criminal and civil was clear but this video brought it down into detail. Overall the video was great.
ReplyDeleteI also found great interest in the video itself because of the repetitive confusion between civil and criminal trials. But I wish I heard more about civil even though I'm a criminal law student. Though there were missing things I enjoyed the detailed video . Aphi345
DeleteI agree with you. Everything was clear and out and the open I like how he explained everything I enjoyed the video I found everything good and lashay 345
DeleteI was interested in this. It tells someone who knows nothing about the criminal world something. It gives information that I only knew partially. I liked the way he made comparisons and explenations on all the little things he went over.
ReplyDeleteFree Thinker 345
I agree people do need to know the difference between the two. I never these the difference between them too. I was interested in this because if you don't know he's explaining everything flat out and that's what I like. After watching this I now know the difference between both of them and I agree with it cause at first I thought they was the same both being brought to court and they was the same. I'm glad he explained it like that everything was clear and understandable. Lashay345
ReplyDelete