11

Civil suits often include damages of a punitive nature with large amounts imposed on the balance of probabilities.

In criminal cases, fines can be imposed but require conviction beyond reasonable doubt but those fines are often much less than punitive damages.

Since the purpose of punitive damages is, well, punitive: why doesn’t it require a conviction?

WOPR
  • 415
  • 4
  • 9

3 Answers3

18

Depriving a person of their liberty requires a higher standard of certainty

Losing money is tough, but losing the ability to go outside when you want is a much worse penalty. Criminal convictions most often result in prison, so the standards of criminal conviction are different than civil cases. I think this makes sense to most people familiar with the system.

Tiger Guy
  • 6,715
  • 2
  • 14
  • 34
  • 1
    Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. – feetwet Jan 28 '24 at 20:05
  • 2
    YMMV. It strictly depends on the sentence length and the amount of fine (relative to your overall wealth). – Trang Oul Jan 29 '24 at 06:27
9

Financial penalties do not require criminality

Neither fines levied by the state nor punitive damages require criminality. For example, parking offences are not criminal and are usually punished by fines.

Only punishments that involve deprivation of liberty require a criminal conviction.

Dale M
  • 208,266
  • 17
  • 237
  • 460
  • 10
    This response seems to simply restate the context around the question. – Lamar Latrell Jan 27 '24 at 19:37
  • 1
    Are you sure parking offences are not criminal? There must be some jurisdictions where at least some parking offences are indeed criminal. But also if they're not criminal then what sort of offence are they? If you're not being prosecuted for the bad parking who's suing you? Or is it another form of legal action? – bdsl Jan 28 '24 at 00:26
  • 2
    They’re civil offenses and you are being prosecuted by the government @bdsl – Dale M Jan 28 '24 at 00:51
  • 1
    @bdsl Only if you park in the way of the fire truck, and then it the illegal parking is a civil offense in addition to the criminal act of hindering the rescue service. – Trish Jan 28 '24 at 17:03
  • 1
    I was taught “parking in the way of a fire truck hinders it only minimally, and no insurance will pay for the damage to your car”. If the fire engine needs to get through, it gets through. If it needs to get through fast, it gets through fast. – gnasher729 Jan 28 '24 at 18:05
1

The difference is between a civil action and criminal prosecution.

A civil action pits citizen vs. citizen (substitute org for citizen). The law limits the punishment one citizen can levy on another to monetary damages (and possibly a public apology). The proof standard is the preponderance of the evidence (>50% chance the alleged harm occurred). Juries decide awards based on proportionality and cognizant of the respondent's ability to pay.

Criminal prosecution pits The People of the state against the individual charged with criminal offense. Punishments go well beyond $ fines, to include incarceration, and in the extreme, the death penalty. The proof standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning there is no reasonable explanation for what happened other than criminal intent -- a much more rigorous proof standard than in a civil suit.

pbierre
  • 111
  • 1
  • 1
    Governments often engage in civil enforcement, at least in the US system. One advantage of doing so, from the government's point of view, is the lower standard of proof. – phoog Jan 28 '24 at 15:44
  • 2
    This does not appear to answer the question as asked. To recap, the question asks "Why?" This does not appear to answer why. It merely states that there is a difference, but does not explain why that difference (who is the plaintiff) should lead to the result (difference in standards for conviction). The question also anticipates part of this answer and explains criminal cases can also lead to a punishment that is solely a fine and those fines can often be less than the punitive damages in a civil case, and I don't see tha taddressed. – D.W. Jan 28 '24 at 18:34
  • "possibly a public apology" Western legal systems never impose this as a punishment. – ohwilleke Jan 28 '24 at 23:16
  • @D.W. Law.SE can only answer the question "why" in the narrow sense (i.e. because of how the distinction between civil and criminal cases is drawn. By why the people made the legal system chose to make it the way that it is, is beyond the scope of Law.SE. – ohwilleke Jan 28 '24 at 23:19
  • I wonder if SCOTUS has considered if the Eighth Amendment applies to punitive damages awards?” Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. ”Maybe that’s another question. – WOPR Jan 29 '24 at 02:01
  • @ohwilleke, I seem to remember many answers here who were perfectly fine with answering "Why?", for example by digging up the landmark court cases which lead to a certain law, and such. I'm pretty sure reasons for the distinction asked by OP can be found somewhere? – AnoE Jan 29 '24 at 13:03
  • @phoog Indeed, that's often given as the reason why the NY AG sued Trump's businesses in civil court rather than charging them with criminal fraud. – Barmar Jan 29 '24 at 15:55
  • @AnoE The would be an example of the former - what is the reason within the legal system that a distinction is made, as opposed to the latter case which seems to be what this question is looking for of why was the decision within the legal system that dictates this result reached. – ohwilleke Jan 29 '24 at 16:14
  • 1
    @WOPR Civil damages aren't a bail or fine, and the latter part of the amendment has been found to refer to criminal punishment - Ingraham v. Wright, 1977: "An examination of the history of the [Eighth] Amendment and the decisions of this Court construing the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment confirms that it was designed to protect those convicted of crimes." – Nuclear Hoagie Jan 29 '24 at 16:17
  • The majority of civil suits are settled between the litigants before a jury verdict becomes necessary. The terms can be wide-ranging, but usually involve money and/or property. A public apology is sometimes agreed to. Ohwilleke is correct that a jury cannot order a public apology. – pbierre Jan 29 '24 at 19:28
  • @NuclearHoagie It's interesting that a civil party can impose more severe penalties than the State can in a criminal trial, but I think I'm veering off topic. – WOPR Jan 29 '24 at 21:29