This came up in the adultery thread and I thought I'd start a new thread to avoid derailing that one.
I don't understand why it's a good idea to have the distinction between these things. It seems that wrongs are often arbitrarily classified as "crimes" or "not crimes" (like "infractions", "torts", etc). (And with the ruling on the Obamacare individual mandate, there is also the category of a punishment of a wrong as a "tax".)
As well as seeming arbitrary, it seems like it can be wasteful too, say when you have a a case of battery, and there is both a criminal trial and a civil trial. Why shouldn't there just be one trial to determine guilt, and then decide what to do about it?
I understand that there are procedural differences between them (e.g. "beyond reasonable doubt" vs "preponderance of the evidence") but I don't know whether those are good differences.
One suggested distinction I've heard is that "torts" are wrongs against another human beings while "crimes" are wrongs against "society". First, it doesn't seem like a wrong against "society" (and by implication not a wrong against any human being) is a good thing for law to punish. It tends to just be a justification for victimless "crimes". And second, that's not consistently followed. Indeed, the worst wrongs against persons (violence, theft, etc) are considered "crimes".
I don't understand why it's a good idea to have the distinction between these things. It seems that wrongs are often arbitrarily classified as "crimes" or "not crimes" (like "infractions", "torts", etc). (And with the ruling on the Obamacare individual mandate, there is also the category of a punishment of a wrong as a "tax".)
As well as seeming arbitrary, it seems like it can be wasteful too, say when you have a a case of battery, and there is both a criminal trial and a civil trial. Why shouldn't there just be one trial to determine guilt, and then decide what to do about it?
I understand that there are procedural differences between them (e.g. "beyond reasonable doubt" vs "preponderance of the evidence") but I don't know whether those are good differences.
One suggested distinction I've heard is that "torts" are wrongs against another human beings while "crimes" are wrongs against "society". First, it doesn't seem like a wrong against "society" (and by implication not a wrong against any human being) is a good thing for law to punish. It tends to just be a justification for victimless "crimes". And second, that's not consistently followed. Indeed, the worst wrongs against persons (violence, theft, etc) are considered "crimes".
Comment