by Judy Joyce

Created on: October 16, 2008

Essays: The Criminal Justice System:

When a criminal complaint is filed in the Criminal Court and the District Attorney handles an indictment in which a citizen is a victim, the aggrieved person can also file suit in Civil Court. How the victim of the crime obtains "justice" is administered under different standards and with different proofs. Each court has different laws and rules to follow. The fact that the courtroom, judge, lawyers and staff all sit in similar places, dress in similar ways, and record what is going on seems to contribute to how and why it is, citizens are miffed about what is really going on.

In the mind of the citizen, justice is justice. It implies fairness, access and rules they can understand. The major flaw is that what happens in either of these types of courtrooms is less about justice and more about evidence. This is a fact that is extremely misunderstood. Even when evidence is "clear and convincing", it may be inadmissable. If it is admissible in Civil Court, it may be inadmissible in a Criminal Court where evidence that is self-incriminating may be excluded. The most well understood element of this principle is that a confession under conditions of torture is inadmissable in Criminal Court. In a Civil Court such evidence may constitute an excuse for the conduct. However, many things make evidence inadmissable without being as exotic as confessions under conditions of torture.

In raising the issue of "clear and convincing" evidence above, another complication between citizens and courtroom "justice" raises it's head. In a Civil Court, admissible evidence may be clear and convincing alright and that may be sufficient to obtain an award of damages. When the decision about all the evidence is put together two things have to come together for a plaintiff (the person aggrieved and seeking damages) to succeed. Not only must all the evidence be clear and convincing, it must be enough to prove all of the elements that make up the allegation. Different allegations have different elements. A criminal conviction has an entirely different and more difficult standard. Clear and convincing evidence will not obtain a conviction. The evidence there must prove the District Attorney's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

District Attorney may advise the victim not to allege the very thing that the aggrieved party know happened to them. This is because the attorney can see that there is not enough evidence to carry the "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof necessary.

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>