Compare the standard of proof for civil and criminal cases.(1 point)
Responses
The standard of proof in a civil case is decided by the jury, while in a criminal case it is decided by the judge.
The standard of proof in a civil case is decided by the jury, while in a criminal case it is decided by the judge.
The standard of proof changes in both criminal and civil cases based on the type of case.
The standard of proof changes in both criminal and civil cases based on the type of case.
The standard of proof is higher in a criminal case.
The standard of proof is higher in a criminal case.
The standard of proof is lower in a criminal case.
The standard of proof is higher in a criminal case.
The standard of proof is higher in a criminal case.
The correct answer is: The standard of proof is higher in a criminal case.
To explain how to arrive at this answer, we need to understand what the standard of proof means in both civil and criminal cases.
In a civil case, the standard of proof is known as "preponderance of the evidence." This means that the evidence presented must show that it is more likely than not that the defendant is responsible for the harm alleged. The decision on the standard of proof is typically made by the jury.
On the other hand, in a criminal case, the standard of proof is known as "beyond a reasonable doubt." This means that the evidence presented must be convincing enough for the judge or jury to be certain, with no reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crime. The decision on the standard of proof is typically made by the judge.
Comparing the two standards, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a higher standard of proof compared to "preponderance of the evidence." It requires a greater degree of certainty about the defendant's guilt. Therefore, the correct answer is that the standard of proof is higher in a criminal case.