Reference no: EM132682569

Question 1. Burden of proof in a criminal case is different from burdens of proof in a civil case is in a criminal case there is a defendant. There is guilt and there is reasonable doubt. In a civil case there is proof and the plaintiff must defend their case. This is fair from a constitutional perspective due to there being a jury during criminal cases and no jury with only proof in civil cases.

Question 2. The burden of proof in a criminal justice case is different from burdens of proof available for civil cases because it is usually proved "beyond reasonable doubt" and civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof. According to an article, "In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution, as the defendant is presumed innocent. In a civil case the plaintiff makes the original allegations in a complaint and bears the initial burden."

Question 3. The Burden of proof in criminal cases is heavily emphasized than in civil cases. In criminal cases, it usually involves someone committing a serious crime or a felony like armed robbery. The prosecutor has the burden of proof to show the jury along with the court that the defendant is guilty with the charges made against them. The evidence must be beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, it usually involves two parties that made an agreement and the contract was broken. The two parties in a civil case have to persuade the judge or jury that they are right and should be compensated. The burden of proof is not as emphasized as in a criminal case because it is not as serious as a federal crime. It is fair from a constitutional perspective. It gives the defendant a clean slate from the beginning and protection from the constitution. The accused is automatically presumed innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution and law enforcement.

Question 4. With the context of criminal cases and civil cases, the burden of proof is different. Within criminal cases, the defendant must be proven guilty. In a civil case, the plaintiff is supposed to support his case with a "preponderance of evidence". Both standards are quite different from one another. To have something proven beyond a reasonable doubt, is to use evidence in order to make the jury believe your side's explanation in a case. "Preponderance of the evidence" is a standard which represents the point at which the fact finder in a case is convinced that your claim has more of a 50% chance of being truthful. As you can see, the second standard is much easier to accomplish. Both criminal courts and civil courts are very different from one another, so from a constitutional perspective, it would be fair to treat them differently.

Question 5. The burden of proof the prosecution is required to produce credible evidence to prove every element of each crime charged (Hails, 2018). In criminal cases, they establish the fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof in civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence. In criminal cases, many times generally must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt." In civil cases have a lower standard like "preponderance of the evidence," but it does not mean that the crimes in civil cases are less severe. From a constitutional perspective, I think it is fair because it acknowledges your rights and the accused is innocent until proven guilty.