This video outlines the differences between civil and criminal court, and to me, it does a very good job of pointing out their distinctions in a way that just about anyone could understand. It also gives terms and phrases that help distinguish the two, for example, criminal court uses the term murder and civil court would use the term wrongful death. The two can also overlap, and a person can be found guilty in one court and not the other. One reason for this would be that the jury has to be around ninety-five percent certain that a person is guilty in criminal court, while they only have to be about fifty-one percent certain in civil court. This was the case with O.J. Simpson who was found guilty in civil court of the murder of his ex-wife, but due to a small percentage of uncertainty he was found innocent in criminal court. George Zimmerman is another example given in the video; he was found not guilty of the murder of Trayvon Martin in criminal court, but if he were to have a civil suit the results could be very different due to the different standards set for the jury. Blues456
this was a very intriguing subject to learn from. You covered basically everything in the video. good job. I now understand the difference between the two civil and criminal. Extreme456
This video covers a wide span of what is criminal and what is civil law. The criminal court system and civil court system are two different courts. Criminal is guilt. In civil court they are liable, they can never be guilty. In criminal court you are guilty when proven beyond reasonable doubt. A jury has to be ninety-five percent sure in order to convict as guilty. OJ was not criminally charged but civilly charged because of the fifty-one percent instead of the ninety-five percent. So because the jurors had some doubt and just enough of that doubt it became a civil case. I really enjoyed the video, it taught me a lot. For example, I did not think that you could be convicted in one but not the other. I always just assumed that if you were convicted in one you were automatically convicted in the other court. Extreme456
I totally agree. It shows you the major differences and percentages to hold somebody either liable or guilty of whatever crime they have committed. But they civil law was still a little bit blurry to me in the beginning till he explained about how much the evidence can show how that is liable but have to hit a certain standard till proven. DaBulls456
I agree, the video well explained what criminal and civil law are. I think the high standard of finding someone guilty is great, so they do not convict the wrong person. The civil law is a little more liberal on the fact that the only thing that they lose is money. bamboo456
This video really showed me the big differences between criminal and civil law. The one thing that I didn't know about criminal law is that jury has to be 95% sure that the criminal did the act and should be guilty. Beyond reasonable doubt is a good way to be sure that the criminal had enough evidence that they can found guilty of murder, etc. But I think the part where he mentioned that if the jury only has the 6% of people where they think that the criminal didn't do it and should be acquitted should probably look into further detail but that's their own opinion I guess. Civil law was the one law that was always a blur to me but I'm glad that this professor opened it up and did not beat around the bush with it. It's all based on evidence when the crime was committed. It states that the jury has to be 51% certain that the person should be liable of the crime. It basically just means that money is the main issue for civil law. Overall this video was great and explained everything well. DaBulls456
I agree! I didn't know that about the jury either. Yes, the civil law was very confusing for me too, I never understood what it meant. But, the video was very good and open up my eyes to it. I agree with you on all of it!
This video explained very clearly the differences between civil and criminal law. I enjoyed this video so much because it is very basic. There is a lot of things within the criminal justice system that are very complex, what this video does is, it break down these complex laws, and put them in term that people who know very little about the civil and criminal law will understand. Something that stood out to me was the percentages the man in the video gave. In a Criminal court the jury has to be 95% certain that the defendant is guilty. However, in a civil court the jury only has to be about 51% certain that they are liable. The reason this percentage is so low is because the consequences for being found liable in a civil court have to do with money. The consequences if found guilty in a criminal court could extend to the death penalty, so the jury needs to be nearly certain before sentencing an innocent person to that. Piglet456
The video was great at outlining the two differences of Civil and Criminal Courts. I didn't know that Civil Court was trying to get some one liable for there actions, and not trying to find them guilty. Also, I didn't know that Criminal Court was trying to find someone guilty. I like the way he broke the O.J. case down to us, how he was found guilty in Civil Court, but found not guilty in Criminal Court. I like the way he explained how the two can overlap on each other, and the percentage on the two. The Civil Court part I never really understood, it was always confusing to me, I'm glad the professor broke it down the way he did and opened up my eye to it. In a way, he kind of said, that states are different, and laws are totally different. Going back to the O.J. case, how he moved to a different state, so that they couldn't take his money. As, that state when he was in before, they could take everything that he had. So, each state have there own set of laws; so better some worse. Overall, I think the video was so good, very well breaking down. He couldn't have said it any better than he did.
I also liked how he used the O.J. Simpson case as an example, it helped me to understand the differences between the two courts. I also found that example useful because even though O.J. didn't get charged in the criminal court he was still found liable in civil court. This video really helped explain the laws of both courts and also how they sometimes can work together. Piglet456
I also didn’t know that civil court was concerned with liability and not guilt. I, like you, didn’t have very much knowledge about what civil court was or how it worked, but this video really did a good job at explaining the inner workings. This professor did a very good job at making this video, and I don’t think it could have been made any clearer. Blues456
This video explains the difference between civil and criminal law, it states that civil law the person is liable and criminal law the person is guilty. To find a person guilty of a crime, they have to find evidence that is “beyond a reasonable doubt” which is tough to meet because they have to be 95% certain that they did the crime. I agree because you do not want to send someone to prison if they did not commit a crime. The civil law, it is called “preponderance of the evidence” which they only have to be 51 percent certain and they are considered liable. They never go to jail or get put to death they just lose money. I found it interesting that a person in a criminal case can be found not guilty, but can be found liable and lose some money. The video overall informed me on what the difference between civil and criminal law. bamboo456
I agree the percentage should be higher for criminal activity, because we indeed dont want to send the wrong person to jail. On the other hand, when you look at cases like the OJ Simpson case, it makes you wonder. His team was able to provide at least a 5% chance that he wasn't guilty, despite the overwhelming evidence. It makes you think if he really got away with murder. Music 456
Interesting and very important to know the difference between civil and criminal court. In criminal court you are "guilty" and in civil court you are "liable". The guy did a good job of instilling it into my head! I was also not aware that a jury has to be 95% sure to sentence a crime. It makes me wonder if we let to many criminals get away due to this. Its also interesting to know that in criminal cases, the defendant can get away with it, but then will most likely be held liable in a separate civil case. I still wonder why for civil cases, its 51% and then you are liable. Music 456
As said in the video, civil cases are basically about business, money and liability. My perspective is due to money being the only element at stake, there percentage of truth is lower than that of the criminal cases. In civil cases, there is no guilt and no one could be guilty; but criminal cases are all about guilt. Murder is an issue in criminal court which is a serious matter, but the little 6% of uncertainty can let someone off. If there case goes to civil court, there can be some type of justice served being that money is for sell. BoyoKid456
I like the clear difference he gives between criminal and civil law. Civil law is being liable of something, while criminal law is being found guilty of something. And while the two overlap they have their differences. Just think of it as business law as civil, and criminal law as, well, criminal. The percentages are justifiable yet I feel like the criminal law percentage could be a little lower than what it is. Overall a good informative video. DeadMan456
In the video, Jay M. points out the differences in civil and criminal law. There are fundamental concepts that differentiates civil and criminal law. Civil is where business happens, it's about liability; whereas criminal law is about guilt. Criminal cases are displayed when guilt is found "beyond a reasonable doubt". This is held by a high standard where the jury needs to be at least 95% certainty that the person did the crime. In civil cases, no one is guilty. "Preponderance of the evidence" is how the civil court is measured. There has to be 51% certainty that the person is negligent. Money is the only thing at stake, there is no jail time or death sentencing in civil court, only collectible monetary damages. In conclusion, civil law is about business, money and 51% liability and criminal law is about guilt. BoyoKid456
This video outlines the differences between civil and criminal court, and to me, it does a very good job of pointing out their distinctions in a way that just about anyone could understand. It also gives terms and phrases that help distinguish the two, for example, criminal court uses the term murder and civil court would use the term wrongful death. The two can also overlap, and a person can be found guilty in one court and not the other. One reason for this would be that the jury has to be around ninety-five percent certain that a person is guilty in criminal court, while they only have to be about fifty-one percent certain in civil court. This was the case with O.J. Simpson who was found guilty in civil court of the murder of his ex-wife, but due to a small percentage of uncertainty he was found innocent in criminal court. George Zimmerman is another example given in the video; he was found not guilty of the murder of Trayvon Martin in criminal court, but if he were to have a civil suit the results could be very different due to the different standards set for the jury.
ReplyDeleteBlues456
this was a very intriguing subject to learn from. You covered basically everything in the video. good job. I now understand the difference between the two civil and criminal.
DeleteExtreme456
This video covers a wide span of what is criminal and what is civil law. The criminal court system and civil court system are two different courts. Criminal is guilt. In civil court they are liable, they can never be guilty. In criminal court you are guilty when proven beyond reasonable doubt. A jury has to be ninety-five percent sure in order to convict as guilty. OJ was not criminally charged but civilly charged because of the fifty-one percent instead of the ninety-five percent. So because the jurors had some doubt and just enough of that doubt it became a civil case. I really enjoyed the video, it taught me a lot. For example, I did not think that you could be convicted in one but not the other. I always just assumed that if you were convicted in one you were automatically convicted in the other court.
ReplyDeleteExtreme456
I totally agree. It shows you the major differences and percentages to hold somebody either liable or guilty of whatever crime they have committed. But they civil law was still a little bit blurry to me in the beginning till he explained about how much the evidence can show how that is liable but have to hit a certain standard till proven. DaBulls456
DeleteI agree, the video well explained what criminal and civil law are. I think the high standard of finding someone guilty is great, so they do not convict the wrong person. The civil law is a little more liberal on the fact that the only thing that they lose is money.
Deletebamboo456
This video really showed me the big differences between criminal and civil law. The one thing that I didn't know about criminal law is that jury has to be 95% sure that the criminal did the act and should be guilty. Beyond reasonable doubt is a good way to be sure that the criminal had enough evidence that they can found guilty of murder, etc. But I think the part where he mentioned that if the jury only has the 6% of people where they think that the criminal didn't do it and should be acquitted should probably look into further detail but that's their own opinion I guess. Civil law was the one law that was always a blur to me but I'm glad that this professor opened it up and did not beat around the bush with it. It's all based on evidence when the crime was committed. It states that the jury has to be 51% certain that the person should be liable of the crime. It basically just means that money is the main issue for civil law. Overall this video was great and explained everything well. DaBulls456
ReplyDeleteI agree! I didn't know that about the jury either. Yes, the civil law was very confusing for me too, I never understood what it meant. But, the video was very good and open up my eyes to it. I agree with you on all of it!
DeletePolice456
This video explained very clearly the differences between civil and criminal law. I enjoyed this video so much because it is very basic. There is a lot of things within the criminal justice system that are very complex, what this video does is, it break down these complex laws, and put them in term that people who know very little about the civil and criminal law will understand. Something that stood out to me was the percentages the man in the video gave. In a Criminal court the jury has to be 95% certain that the defendant is guilty. However, in a civil court the jury only has to be about 51% certain that they are liable. The reason this percentage is so low is because the consequences for being found liable in a civil court have to do with money. The consequences if found guilty in a criminal court could extend to the death penalty, so the jury needs to be nearly certain before sentencing an innocent person to that. Piglet456
ReplyDeleteThe video was great at outlining the two differences of Civil and Criminal Courts. I didn't know that Civil Court was trying to get some one liable for there actions, and not trying to find them guilty. Also, I didn't know that Criminal Court was trying to find someone guilty. I like the way he broke the O.J. case down to us, how he was found guilty in Civil Court, but found not guilty in Criminal Court. I like the way he explained how the two can overlap on each other, and the percentage on the two. The Civil Court part I never really understood, it was always confusing to me, I'm glad the professor broke it down the way he did and opened up my eye to it. In a way, he kind of said, that states are different, and laws are totally different. Going back to the O.J. case, how he moved to a different state, so that they couldn't take his money. As, that state when he was in before, they could take everything that he had. So, each state have there own set of laws; so better some worse. Overall, I think the video was so good, very well breaking down. He couldn't have said it any better than he did.
ReplyDeletePolice456
I also liked how he used the O.J. Simpson case as an example, it helped me to understand the differences between the two courts. I also found that example useful because even though O.J. didn't get charged in the criminal court he was still found liable in civil court. This video really helped explain the laws of both courts and also how they sometimes can work together. Piglet456
DeleteI also didn’t know that civil court was concerned with liability and not guilt. I, like you, didn’t have very much knowledge about what civil court was or how it worked, but this video really did a good job at explaining the inner workings. This professor did a very good job at making this video, and I don’t think it could have been made any clearer.
DeleteBlues456
This video explains the difference between civil and criminal law, it states that civil law the person is liable and criminal law the person is guilty. To find a person guilty of a crime, they have to find evidence that is “beyond a reasonable doubt” which is tough to meet because they have to be 95% certain that they did the crime. I agree because you do not want to send someone to prison if they did not commit a crime. The civil law, it is called “preponderance of the evidence” which they only have to be 51 percent certain and they are considered liable. They never go to jail or get put to death they just lose money. I found it interesting that a person in a criminal case can be found not guilty, but can be found liable and lose some money. The video overall informed me on what the difference between civil and criminal law.
ReplyDeletebamboo456
I agree the percentage should be higher for criminal activity, because we indeed dont want to send the wrong person to jail. On the other hand, when you look at cases like the OJ Simpson case, it makes you wonder. His team was able to provide at least a 5% chance that he wasn't guilty, despite the overwhelming evidence. It makes you think if he really got away with murder.
DeleteMusic 456
Interesting and very important to know the difference between civil and criminal court. In criminal court you are "guilty" and in civil court you are "liable". The guy did a good job of instilling it into my head! I was also not aware that a jury has to be 95% sure to sentence a crime. It makes me wonder if we let to many criminals get away due to this. Its also interesting to know that in criminal cases, the defendant can get away with it, but then will most likely be held liable in a separate civil case. I still wonder why for civil cases, its 51% and then you are liable.
ReplyDeleteMusic 456
As said in the video, civil cases are basically about business, money and liability. My perspective is due to money being the only element at stake, there percentage of truth is lower than that of the criminal cases. In civil cases, there is no guilt and no one could be guilty; but criminal cases are all about guilt. Murder is an issue in criminal court which is a serious matter, but the little 6% of uncertainty can let someone off. If there case goes to civil court, there can be some type of justice served being that money is for sell. BoyoKid456
DeleteI like the clear difference he gives between criminal and civil law. Civil law is being liable of something, while criminal law is being found guilty of something. And while the two overlap they have their differences. Just think of it as business law as civil, and criminal law as, well, criminal. The percentages are justifiable yet I feel like the criminal law percentage could be a little lower than what it is. Overall a good informative video. DeadMan456
ReplyDeleteIn the video, Jay M. points out the differences in civil and criminal law. There are fundamental concepts that differentiates civil and criminal law. Civil is where business happens, it's about liability; whereas criminal law is about guilt. Criminal cases are displayed when guilt is found "beyond a reasonable doubt". This is held by a high standard where the jury needs to be at least 95% certainty that the person did the crime. In civil cases, no one is guilty. "Preponderance of the evidence" is how the civil court is measured. There has to be 51% certainty that the person is negligent. Money is the only thing at stake, there is no jail time or death sentencing in civil court, only collectible monetary damages. In conclusion, civil law is about business, money and 51% liability and criminal law is about guilt. BoyoKid456
ReplyDelete