USF Distinguish Between Criminal Law and Civil Law Question and Answer Greetings, in this assignment you will have to answer each question with at least wi

USF Distinguish Between Criminal Law and Civil Law Question and Answer Greetings, in this assignment you will have to answer each question with at least with three sentences except Q2 and Q3 they might need more. The format is Bold question and the answers should be under each question with the same order. Please avoid plaigrism and no outside sources needed. I’ll upload the materials u need for the assignment,references page is not necessary also the cover page.

Here are the questions

“

1-Distinguish between criminal law and civil law. Provide examples of each type of law.

2-Compare and contrast the different legal standards of proof.

3-Distinguish between substantive law and procedural law. Provide examples of each type of law.

4-What is the significance of stare decisis??

5-Explain why procedural rights are important to those accused of crimes and to the efficiency of the criminal justice system.

6-Describe the procedural rights of the accused that are contained in the Fourth Amendment. Provide an example.

7-Describe the procedural rights of the accused that are contained in the Fifth Amendment. Provide an example.

8-Describe the procedural rights of the accused that are contained in the Sixth Amendment. Provide an example.?

9-Describe the procedural rights of the accused that are contained in the Eighth Amendment. Provide an example 5:27 PM Fri Sep 20
Famous Cases
SECTION 1
North Carolina vs. Cotton Trial (1984)
Criminal Law
Criminal law vs. civil law
Photo of Bobby Poole (left) and Ronald Cotton (right). Photo credit.
In July 1984, Jennifer Thompson was a 22-year-
old student at Elon College in North Carolina. It was
summertime, and Jennifer was enjoying the break
from classes, working as an aerobics instructor at
Spa Lady. On the night of her ordeal, she
remembered going out to dinner with her boyfriend,
Paul, and later having a piercing headache. Paul took
her home, rubbed her back and gave her aspirin with
water. He left at about 11 p.m. after she had drifted
off to sleep.
There are two distinct types of law practiced in the
United States: criminal law and civil law. Criminal law is
the body of law that defines conduct as acceptable and
unacceptable forms of behavior. It includes rules that
specify how statutes should be applied against persons
who violate the law. Criminal law involves the prosecution
of a person for an act that has been classified as a crime.
The prosecutor initiates the proceedings as a
representative of the county or state on behalf of the
victim, as well as the other people in the jurisdiction. This
is because a person who violates the law is not only
harming an individual, but is also harming society as a
whole. Persons convicted of a crime may be fined, have
their liberties restricted, and may even be incarcerated.
At 3 a.m., something startled her. It was the
sound of feet shuffling. In her semi-conscious state,
she searched for a clue. All she heard was the thrum
and rattle of the air conditioner against her window;
The second type of law practiced in the United
States is civil law. Civil law is the body of law regulating
Back to page 217
51
5:27 PM Fri Sep 20
3.7 PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT;
AND BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume
or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to
each material allegation in the [information) [indictment] through each stage of the
trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a
reasonable doubt.
To overcome the defendant’s presumption of innocence, the State has the
burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed
and the defendant is the person who committed the crime.
and resolving disputes between private parties.
Personal injury claims, contracts, property disputes,
probate court, and family law cases are all
examples of civil law. Unlike criminal law, the victim
initiates the lawsuit. The penalties sought are
typically monetary, although injunction orders and
specific performance remedies are sometimes
requested. However, a person can never seek
incarceration. For instance, suppose a person
enters into a contract with a landscaping company.
The person pays in advance for monthly services for
the upkeep of his lawn. If the company fails to
provide the landscaping services before the end of
the month, the customer could then file a lawsuit to
recoup the money paid or seek specific
performance of the contract, but he would be
unable to seek imprisonment against the company
employees as damages.
The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.
Whenever the words “reasonable doubt” are used you must consider the
following:
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or
forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if
you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully
considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding
conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one
which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable
doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.
It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to
look for that proof.
A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the
evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.
Another distinguishable characteristic of civil
law is the standard of proof. In a civil case, the
plaintiff must prove that the defendant was liable
by a preponderance of the evidence.
Preponderance of the evidence means more than
50%; it is just enough to tip the scale towards one
side. Contrasted with criminal law, the burden of
If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If
you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.
Florida jury instruction for reasonable doubt. Image credit.
Back to page 217
52
5:27 PM Fri Sep 20
Legal standards of proof
proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no
definitive percentage; 95% is more or less the
appropriate amount. It is when the prosecutor can
convince the jury to a moral certainty that they feel an
abiding conviction that the defendant is guilty of a
crime.
5
Fact vs. Fiction
Please tap the photo.
There are different standards of proof depending
on the legal activity. We have already discussed the
burden of proof that is required to find a defendant
guilty of a crime (beyond a reasonable doubt) and
liable in a civil trial (preponderance of evidence). The
standard of proof necessary for a defendant to prevail
on an insanity claim in federal court and in Arizona is
clear and convincing evidence. The burden of proof
is on the defendant to show that it was “substantially
more likely than not” that the defendant was insane at
the time he committed the crime. It is also the
standard used by judges to determine the admissibility
of evidence in trial. Clear and convincing evidence is a
higher burden than preponderance of the evidence, but
a lower burden than the beyond a reasonable doubt
standard. This should not be confused with absolute
certainty or finding guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.
These last two standards only exist in pop culture.
Drug dealer and buyer making a transaction. Photo credit.
Back to page 217
53
5:27 PM Fri Sep 20
Standards of Proof
MERE
REASONABLE
PROBABLE
PREPONDERANCE
SUSPICION
SUSPICION
CAUSE
OF
EVIDENCE
Hunch or gut feeling
*Consensual encounter
Civil case
What a police officer
needs to:
*Detain
*Investigate
*Stop & frisk (pat down)
What a police officer
needs for a:
*Search
*Arrest
*Warrant
CLEAR AND
BEYOND A
BEYOND A
CONVINCING
?
REASONABLE
SHADOW OF A
EVIDENCE
DOUBT
DOUBT
Criminal case
Absolute certainty
*Does not exist: only
*Used to determine
insanity in federal cases
*Used by judges to
determine admissibility
of evidence in trial
on TV
Back to page 217
54
5:27 PM Fri Sep 20
requires facts or circumstances that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that a suspect has or is
about to commit a crime. In that scenario, the police
officer would also be entitled to frisk the outer layer of
the suspect’s clothing to search for any hard object
that might feel like a weapon.” This pat down search
is not as invasive as a full-blown search conducted
with a warrant or as a result of probable cause; it is a
cursory search to ensure the officer’s safety while
conducting an investigation.
Reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch, but
does not require hard evidence. Matching a description
of someone who committed a crime, dropping
something suspicious on the ground while evading an
officer, and pulling over a driver for a traffic stop are all
examples of what would constitute reasonable
suspicion to detain an individual.
Suspect being frisked in New Orleans. Photo credit.
Police officers are required to have a certain type
of standard of proof before they can compel contact
with the public. If an officer has a hunch, gut feeling, or
mere suspicion that a person is engaged in criminal
activity, he cannot legally stop or detain that person.
He has to rely on the person’s willingness to engage in
a consensual encounter. He needs to have a higher
burden of proof, which is reasonable suspicion. It
A person cannot be arrested based on reasonable
suspicion-a higher burden of proof of probable cause
is required. However, if probable cause develops as a
result of the investigatory stop, the officer may arrest the
suspect. If the suspect challenges his arrest in court, the
judge will make a determination as to whether a
reasonable and prudent person would believe that a
Back to page 217
55

Purchase answer to see full
attachment