Is criminal law necessary?
Could use punitive damages- the purpose of awarding punitive or exemplary damages is to allow money recovery to the plaintiff by way of punishment to the defendant, and for the added purpose of protecting the public by deterring the defendant and others from doing such wrong in the future.
The imposition of punitive damages is entirely discretionary with the jury. Should you award punitive damages, in fixing the amount, you must take into consideration the character and degree of the wrong shown by evidence in the case and the necessity of preventing future wrongs.
Downfalls: The rich are allowed to engage in bad activity because punitive punishment is not a steep threat. Likewise, the poor are punished relatively more severely, and may not be able to pay. When hurt is caused that is not monetarily measurable, it is difficult to determine. In addition, someone must bring the lawsuit against you, and someone may not be able to bring the suit because of insurance reasons, etc. However, egregious behavior still deserves to be punished. Juries could then choose compensatory damages, which may be little to nothing. In summary, in civil courts, criminal acts could end up being cheaper than they deserve.
*criminal law is not a replacement for civil law, because can bring civil suit alongside
Retribution: “look back” see how bad and act is and punish the defendant for it
“the character and degree of the wrong” refers to RETRIBUTION
Deterrence: “look forward” deter the defendant and others from doing this in the future
“the necessity of preventing similar wrongs” refers to DETERRENCE
However, in civil court, the burden of proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt, which makes it more strenuous to bring a civil suit. Here we see the benefit of criminal trials.
BURDEN OF PROOF: For a plaintiff to be entitled to recover punitive damages, the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged deliberately or consciously in oppression, malice, wantonness, or fraud with regard to the plaintiff. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that, when weighed against evidence in opposition, will produce in the minds of the jury and a high probability as to the correctness of their conclusion. Proof by clear and convincing evidence requires a level of proof greater than the preponderance.
Retributive Theories: Retribution is founded on the idea that those persons who have ca
at a minimal cost. Pure Utilitarians may also be interested in sending too strong a message.
1. Utilitarians- Because they justify punishment on the social good that results, they must accurately predict future behavior, perhaps the behavior of others. An example would be a cocaine dealer when cocaine is about to be legalized. Then, this man would not serve as an example to others.
2. Retributionists- Because they justify punishment on dastardly deeds already done, they need not predict future behavior; rather, they must accurately identify culprits and behavior.
Dudley and Stephens: choice of evils, reduced sentence. They did not know about what may have happened in the future. They use the defense of necessity. Although they are found guilty, the queen reduced the sentence from the death penalty to six months in prison. You cannot kill unless the person’s living with ultimately endanger another, such as self-defense.