Are the distinctions between criminal/infraction/civil/tort/contract law good?

[myth]

Yes, the law currently makes that distinction. The question is why is that a good thing? It seems bad to me.


Is mens rea the root distinction between criminal and civil? That seems like a more reasonable distinction to make. For example if you took someone else's property because you honestly thought they were being offered free for the taking, or you grabbed someone else's purse thinking it was your own, then it could be classified as not-a-crime, and yet could still mean you owe 'damages' (e.g. return the property plus interest). Yes, that could be a reasonable distinction.

Is that always the distinction that the law makes? E.g., suppose someone beats someone else with a tire iron, and there is both a criminal battery trial and a civil battery trial. Is the civil battery trial really about the idea that the accused only accidentally beat the guy with a tire iron? Or thought it would be not wrong to beat the guy with a tire iron?


In my hypothetical, however (and I do have a related specific example in mind), there is intent to knowingly do wrong. An employer willfully withholds $200 million that had already been earned by a group of employees. The employer's intent is to wield it as leverage over the employees, e.g. promising to pay the employees only if they continued working for an additional x years (reminds one of Laban and Jacob). The possible civil repercussions provide little deterrent to doing this. In fact the employer makes it his standard business practice to not pay what he owes, and most of the time gets away with it. If once in a while, he gets caught, and the penalty is at most to pay what is owed plus interest, that's a small price to pay when he gets away with it most of the time.

Of course there is never any way to prove in any specific case that the employer has the intent to do wrong. From what I understand, at least in my state, the only way for it to rise to a criminal charge is if you can prove fraud, and to do that you have to prove that the employer intended to breach at the time that the employer signed the contract. Which is impossible to prove.

I think the concept of mens rea is the root of the difference, yes. Just keep in mind that intent to do wrong is not the same thing as intent to commit a crime, per se. At work we sometimes joke about charging someone with "failure to do right". A civil side is a moral or ethical wrong that does not meet the criteria for a crime (though as in CP's example there can be both criminal and civil repercussions for the same act).

Your $200 million example that you've provided more details about is interesting, because the more you talk about it the closer to criminal it sounds. Given what a criminal investigator could prove about the employer's intentions, there's the potential for criminal charges (though that doesn't mean it'll ever come to that).

Here's an example for you: some slouch goes door to door pretending to sell driveway repaving/sealing services He advertises an crazy high price to unsuspecting homeowners, who pay him up front. He does this several times to different homeowners, and then disappears, never attempting to do any work...but also not returning the money. He could be charged criminally, but only if the police could prove that it was a scam and his business didn't just go belly-up. Sometimes the evidence to prove what you think happened just isn't there, so it's easier to seek remedy through civil courts where the standards of proof are lower.

[Cow Poke]

"Gross negligence" is a legal wrong, with legal repercussions, defined by statute. It just happens to be classified as a "tort" rather than a "crime", and thus is treated differently.

I don't think you're getting this, or maybe I'm not understanding. In the case I presented, there is ZERO legal liability on the part of the shooter. He is justified by law in what he did.

HOWEVER, that does not preclude civil action, even though there was ZERO legal culpability.

What am I missing?

[Joel]

I think the concept of mens rea is the root of the difference, yes. Just keep in mind that intent to do wrong is not the same thing as intent to commit a crime, per se.

It seems circular to define the difference based on the intent to commit a crime, because it already assumes what is a crime.
Hypothetically, a government could arbitrarily decide to reclassify all murder as a civil matter. In which case, intent to murder could not possibly be intent to commit a crime. And if that were the dividing line, that would imply that murder should be only a civil matter.

I do agree that not every wrong should be a crime (or even a tort). E.g. being envious, or your example of failure to do a good.
There is a natural law tradition (going back at least to Cicero as I recall) of discovering what moral wrongs are inherently crimes by their nature. (And that governments ought to adjust their laws to match.) One distinction made in this tradition is between crimes and vices (vices are not crimes). The main distinction there is that vices are personal (victimless) wrongs, while crimes physically hurt someone else (breaking their bones or picking their pocket, as Jefferson said). If we have a natural law definition of crime, and if murder inherently is a crime, then we could non-circularly say that intent to murder is intent to commit a crime.

Your $200 million example that you've provided more details about is interesting, because the more you talk about it the closer to criminal it sounds. Given what a criminal investigator could prove about the employer's intentions, there's the potential for criminal charges (though that doesn't mean it'll ever come to that).

Here's an example for you: some slouch goes door to door pretending to sell driveway repaving/sealing services He advertises an crazy high price to unsuspecting homeowners, who pay him up front. He does this several times to different homeowners, and then disappears, never attempting to do any work...but also not returning the money. He could be charged criminally, but only if the police could prove that it was a scam and his business didn't just go belly-up. Sometimes the evidence to prove what you think happened just isn't there, so it's easier to seek remedy through civil courts where the standards of proof are lower.

From what I understand, at least in my state, if the salesman made the deal never intending to honor it, it's a crime; but if he willfully made the decision, after making the deal, to run with the money, then it's merely civil.
It seems to me like the latter case is morally equivalent to the theft of the money and should be treated the same. (And maybe it is in other states?)
But like you say, even if it is a crime and it's impossible to prove intent, it would be reasonable to have a different category of thing ("civil") where you can at least be made whole without having to prove intent. That makes sense.

[Joel]

I don't think you're getting this, or maybe I'm not understanding. In the case I presented, there is ZERO legal liability on the part of the shooter. He is justified by law in what he did.

HOWEVER, that does not preclude civil action, even though there was ZERO legal culpability.

What am I missing?

I think you are just using using terms like "law" and "illegal" in a narrower sense than I am.
When you say, "there is ZERO legal liability/culpability", I think you mean "there is zero criminal liability/culpability." And you are correct.
When you say, "He is justified by law", I think you mean "He is justified by criminal law." And you are correct.

I think that's overly narrow. There is more law than criminal law. Torts are wrongs defined and proscribed in law too. Torts too create legal liability/culpability. It would seem strange to me to say that breaching a contract is perfectly "legal", merely because it's technically not classified as a "crime". It is a wrong--a violation of the legal rights of another person--in the eyes of the law (codified in contract law), even though it's not classified as a "crime".

It's probably best to avoid a debate over definitions of the terms if we disagree, and I'm happy to use different language to refer to the broader concept I'm referring to. I was trying to use as broad language as I could, such "a wrong in the eyes of the law" as opposed to simply "illegal".

Does that make sense? Or at least help us understand each other better?

[Cow Poke]

I think you are just using using terms like "law" and "illegal" in a narrower sense than I am.

You mean, like, the LEGAL sense? (Keep in mind I like you, Joel, and this isn't a fight )

When you say, "there is ZERO legal liability/culpability", I think you mean "there is zero criminal liability/culpability." And you are correct.

Sure, he is not even ACCUSED of any crime.

When you say, "He is justified by law", I think you mean "He is justified by criminal law." And you are correct.

Meh... it was a "justifiable homicide", resulting in no prosecution or penalty. And of COURSE I'm correct!

I think that's overly narrow. There is more law than criminal law.

Having not even been CHARGED with a crime, because he was justified in his action, the criminal part is all over.

Torts are wrongs defined and proscribed in law too.

In civil law, yes.

Torts too create legal liability/culpability. It would seem strange to me to say that breaching a contract is perfectly "legal", merely because it's technically not classified as a "crime". It is a wrong--a violation of the legal rights of another person--in the eyes of the law (codified in contract law), even though it's not classified as a "crime".

OK, this is where you lose me.... breaching a contract is a civil matter, not subject to the police rushing in and making an arrest, yes? As opposed to a shooting, where the police are, indeed, rushing in to assess the situation, and in the case I presented, discovered that no crime had been committed.

It's probably best to avoid a debate over definitions of the terms if we disagree, and I'm happy to use different language to refer to the broader concept I'm referring to. I was trying to use as broad language as I could, such "a wrong in the eyes of the law" as opposed to simply "illegal".

OK, it is civilly illegal to breach a contract, it is potentially criminally illegal to shoot another human being. yes?

Does that make sense? Or at least help us understand each other better?

Maybe. You tell me.