The Justice System: Civil and Criminal Courts - Research Paper Example

Law Introduction The justice system is comprised of both the criminal and civil courts which act to remedy various wrongs in the society. Every wrong needs to be remedied in one way or another after a fair trial whereby facts, issues and evidence are considered to determine the truth of the matter. As such the criminal and civil courts act as the independent bodies that see to it that justice is achieved. They determine if the alleged wrong doer is actually guilty or not. If guilty, they determine the remedy or penalty that is attached to the wrong done. This generally helps in creating a peaceful society as the people are ensured of justice. Premised on this fact, disputes in a society are settled in an amicable manner thus reducing the conflicts that might arise. Without the criminal and civil courts it’s impossible for the justice system to operate as the need for a body to resolve issues is part and parcel of the justice system. The civil and criminal courts form the judicial system that ensures citizens of any country live safely as well as in a civilized manner. A society cannot do without a judicial system that ensures justice is done. Criminal courts Criminal courts form part of the judicial system that seeks to enforce justice in a society. The idea of criminal courts came about due to the need for an institution to enforce the criminal laws coded in the different states of various countries. Some acts and omissions have been criminalized under the Tennessee Criminal Code and as such the Tennessee criminal courts are institutions that ensure that the criminal justice system is enforced as provided in the law. The criminal courts came about to regulate alleged, potential and actual criminal activities within the limits that have been put in place by the law so as to protect the citizen of a particular country from the wrongful treatment as well as protection from wrongful conviction. The two main reasons why the criminal courts exists is, thus, to first ensure that people are protected from harm of any wrong doer. Secondly, to ensure that the alleged wrong doers are not convicted for a wrong they did not commit (Brown 65). Therefore, the criminal courts serve justice to the victim of the wrong doing as well as to the wrongdoer himself. In many countries it is wrong for citizens to take the law into their hands. For example mob justice is an example of a situation where citizen take the law into their hands and decide on the punishment of the wrong doer. The criminal courts are put in place to avoid such situation where fairness and justice are not seen to be done. Many a time the alleged wrong doer might not be guilty and as such it is important to determine his or her guilt in a free and fair manner through a fair trial and hearing. I addition to giving the alleged wrong doer a fair trial the criminal courts came about to give justice to the person who has suffered harm as a result of the wrong doing. Thus the criminal courts have to balance the interests of both parties of the wrong doing and ensure that justice is done. The idea of criminal courts also came about so as to determine the exact punishment of a guilty person. Every criminal act is known as an offence and various countries have provided for it in their status. Further for every offence provided the there is a punishment and in most cases the punishment provides for a fine not exceeding a particular amount or for a jail sentence not exceeding a particular number of years. This means that there is need to be a system that determines the specific amount of fine or number of years for a jail term. An example is where the Criminal Code of Tennessee provides that a person who commits Class A felony is to be jailed for a term not less than (15) years or more than sixty (60) years imprisonment. In addition to this, the code further provided that the jury may assess a fine not to exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). In such a case there is need for a criminal court which determines the gravity of the offence and as such the specific punishment that is deserved (Shannon 78). The criminal acts are also dived into misdemeanor and offenses and as such the criminal courts have to determine whether an act or omission fall into the category of a misdemeanor or an offence. Lastly the criminal courts by ensuring punishment to the offenders help in deterring the people from wrongdoing. Civil courts Civil courts serve to foresee the enforcement of civil laws. The civil justice stem is wider in scopes and covers more areas of private capacity between individuals in a state. It is a broad area of law and it covers among others the law of torts, the law of contracts, the law of companies, and employment law. This is a body of law that governs the legal relationships between individuals. Due to its wide scope there is a general view that anyone can approach a civil court provided he has a course of action. Most tortuous wrongs which fall under this category of civil law are common wrong which no one would see the need for a remedy. For example for just calling someone a fat elephant one may be liable under the civil courts for slander. The party can allege harm of reputation which may require to be remedied. In many of the instances a damage of reputation may not even be harmful or may have no effect but since the civil courts provide such a wrong then people take advantage to drag others to court. In many other instances the person alleging wrong of a tort may not even be the guilty one. This still proves the general view that anybody can for a civil action. An example is the tort of vicarious liability where an employer is made liable for any harmful acts that his employees commit within the scope of their duty. This is also another broad concept that invites the view that anyone can sue under the civil courts. Despite the foregoing this view is error premised on the fact that there are limits and guiding principal on what amounts to a civil wrong. In fact, many of the areas covered by civil law have been coded in the statutes. The contract law of Tennessee may be found in the Companies Act, the law of contracts act and the others. The principles and doctrines of common law imported in the civil law of Tennessee they provide for general rules as well as their exemptions. But, there are limits on what one can sue about and who one can sue in the civil courts. The legal standard of proof can be narrowly defined as the amount of evidence that a person alleging a wrong by anther in a court of law needs and must present before a trial court so as to win. The standard of proof is the legal burden shouldered by the plaintiff in case of civil cases or the prosecutor in criminal cases. The standard of proof is different for different cases and the most common division is between the civil and criminal cases. In civil cases the onus of proof lies on the plaintiff or the party who is making allegations of a wrong doing. The standard of proof in civil cases traditionally is on a balance of probabilities. The person who started the action in civil cases that is the plaintiff has to prove that it is more likely that the particular act or tort alleged to have happened than not and the happening caused damage or harm to him or her. An example is where one is suing for harm damages resulting from person injury after a car accident. In such case the person suing needs to prove to the trial court that the likelihood that his or her injuries were caused by the car accident is 51% (LeClercq 91). A number of cases have formed precedents on the standard of proof on balance of probabilities. In the case of Miller vs. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372 Lord Denning gave a summary of the requirements for standard of proof needed to convict an accused in criminal cases. Whereas he set the standard of proof in criminal cases as proof beyond reasonable doubt also set the standard of proof in civil case in the following words, “…It must carry a reasonable degree of probability not as high as is required in a criminal case. If the evidence is such that the tribunal can say: ‘we think it more probable than not’, the burden is discharged, but if the probabilities are equal it is not…” In the case of Bater v Bater [1950] 2 All ER 458 at p 459 Lord Denning again referred to both criminal and civil cases. He said that the difference opined on the standard of proof in both cases is more a matter of words. He agreed with the fact that the law set a higher standard of proof in criminal cases as compared to the civil cases but the same was subject to qualification that there was no absolute standard in both cases. He said that in criminal cases where the standard of proof was beyond reasonable doubt there was no set degree of what was beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases too he opined that the balance of probabilities was not to a specific degree or set standard (Brown 93). This has left the whole thing of burden of proof to the discretion of judges. In some instances some judges are of the opinion that the degree depends on the subject matter. As such in fraud cases a civil court will require a higher degree of probability than when it comes to case of negligence. As such it is left to the discretion judges. The case of Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd [1956] 3 All ER 970 at p.978-979 Morris L.J gave a more elaborated opinion in the words, “...It has, however, been emphasized that what is vital is not the mere using of some particular formula of words but the effect of a summing-up in giving true guidance as to the right approach...” Appeal An appeal process is a process through which a dispute which has been determined in a lower court is reviewed in a higher court. There exist different court systems in different states which determine the appeals. The state of Tennessee in the United States has an appellate court which is immediately below the Supreme Court which is the highest in the hierarchy of the court system. The general importance of the appeal court is to ensure that justice is done for the parties to a dispute. The trial judges may err in different aspects. For example the trial judges may error on the procedure and therefore prejudice the position of parties to a dispute. For example, if the procedural may fail to give a hearing to the alleged wrong doer and as such justice fails. In such a case the necessity to correct the wrong procedure occurs so as to correct the mistake. The trial court may make an error of facts when delivering its ruling. This means that the trial court makes a wrong decision based on the fact that it relied on the wrong facts. A trial court may also error on a point of law and as such relies on the wrong authorities or section of the law in arriving at its decision. Such mistakes need to be corrected when they occur and lead to an injustice. An aggrieved party needs a channel that can address such mistakes and correct the decision of the lower courts. In this way appeal helps in ensuring that an injustice is not occasioned on either party of a dispute. Either party to a dispute can be aggrieved by the decisions of a trial court or thus the court of appeal is open to determine appeals from either of the parties. An appeal court in simpler terms helps in correcting the errors of a trial court and as such prevents an injustice from occurring. There are quite a number of ethical issues that stand in the way of appeal. The first ethical issue is on the competence of the trial judges. An error by the trial court makes the citizens lose faith in the trial courts especially when the decision is overturned by the appeal courts. This is the most important ethical issue that come in the way of appeal as the competence of the trial court in most of the cases is brought to question. Another important ethical issue in appeal is the fact that the proceedings do not involve cross examination of witnesses as in the trial. In this case the appeal judges may error as they may not have the opportunity to determine the demeanor of the witnesses. The other important issue that faces appeals is that an appeal may result to delay of justice. An appeal after the long wrong trial also delays justice. Justice delayed may be as well as justice denied. The main function of court systems is to foresee justice that may be denied by the long process and as such fails. The long trial is in itself is delay to justice. So when this further goes to appeal justice is delayed even further. The other ethical issue is premised on the fact that an appeal court may also error. In such a case there may be no provision for further appeal. As such the aggrieved party is left without a remedy. The question is if the appeal occasion an injustice what further action can an aggrieved party take? In most of the instances there is no further remedy. Conclusion The institution of courts is a part of the justice system and it seeks to enforce the law through a fair trial. Thus both civil and criminal courts are part and parcel of the justice system and are important in administration of justice such that without them it is impossible to ensure that justice is done. The civil and criminal courts determine the truth in any dispute and as such they are able to establish whether the alleged wrong doer is guilty or not. This is very important as the civil and criminal courts are set to see a fair trial for the alleged wrong doer by giving him an opportunity to defend himself. Accordingly a fair hearing is thus accorded to the alleged wrong doer. If this was not the case then justice would not have been done. Therefore the institution of court is necessary to afford justice to both parties in a dispute. The civil and criminal laws are distinguished by quite a number of things. First and foremost civil courts determine private disputes whereas criminal courts determine public disputes. Secondly where a crime is committed against the state a civil wrong is committed against a private person. The last difference lies on the standard of proof. The standard or burden of proof is different for a civil and criminal matter. The burden of proof in criminal cases is slightly higher. In civil cases the standard of proof is on balance of probabilities whereas for criminal cases the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Civil wrongs are wider in scope and as such the civil courts are open to wider scope of disputes as compared to the criminal courts. The fact that the civil courts entertain a wide range of matters entertains the idea that anyone can sue the other in the civil courts. However this idea is misguided as there are limits provided by the statutes as well as exemptions to guiding principles of law. Lastly it is important to note that the justice system is built in such a way that a party aggrieved by the decision of lower court is offered an opportunity to disagree with the decision through appeal. This is important to review the decision of a lower court in case there was an error. An opportunity for appeal is important to ensure that justice is done. Works cited Brown, Anderson. Civil versus criminal justice system. Washington D.C. Diane Publishing. 2005. Print. Groebner, Shannon. The origins of civil law. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. 2008 Print. Frederic, LeClercq. “The Tennessee Court System.” Memphis State University Law Review, Volume 8. United States. 1978. Print. Tennessee Criminal code 40-2-101, et seq. Read More