2

Is it true that while for prosecution according to civil (private) law there has to be a party that has been wronged (I'm going to refer to as "victim" from now on) while for criminal law that does not have to be the case?

More specifically that in criminal law …:

  • Something might be a victimless crime or a crime where the victim isn't clearly defined (can't be pin-pointed to, e.g.: the "public", the "future").

  • Something might involve a victim who does not consider him or herself one (while being of sound mind, having legal capacity, etc.)

feetwet
  • 22,409
  • 13
  • 92
  • 189
phk
  • 217
  • 1
  • 10

2 Answers2

5

Yes.

In a civil case, there are two parties and the case is about finding out who has which obligations to whom. In a civil case, the plaintiff has to prove that they actually incurred damage through the actions of the defendant.

A criminal case is the state vs. the defendant. The "wronged party" is the society as a whole, usually represented by the prosecutor. The victim, if there is one, just plays the role of yet another witness to find out if the defendant needs to be punished and how.

There are also examples of crimes which are completely victimless but still punished by some societies. For example, in many places sexual intercourse between two consenting adult siblings is a crime (incest), even though there is no victim. Also, for some crimes it is even a crime to attempt to commit it. So one can be punished in a criminal court even though they didn't actually succeed in causing any damage to anyone.

Example: I throw a rock at your car. When I hit, you can sue me in a civil court and force me to pay for the repairs. When I miss, I caused no damage to you, so there is nothing you could sue about.

But what if I throw a rock at you and miss? That's attempted assault, maybe even attempted murder. When law enforcement finds out about it, I could be arrested, prosecuted and convicted to a prision sentence, even though you are perfectly fine.

Philipp
  • 7,954
  • 27
  • 43
1

The criteria that determine whether a specific category of wrongdoing is addressed as a civil or criminal matter are applied by the legislature while they are crafting the laws.

Criminal law basically says, "Doing X is bad, therefore we will stop it when we see it and punish whoever did it," whereas civil law says, "If you're harmed by someone who did X, you can ask the court to make them stop doing it and pay for the damage." The divide seems to be whether the government should act without the consent of the victim and whether, after the fact, the wrong committed should be addressed by punishment or compensation.

As any first-year law student or observer of our courts can attest, the application of this divide is lacking in consistency:

  • Wrongful discrimination (which the legislature says is wrong in and of itself) is handled as a civil manner.
  • Most forms of larceny are treated as crimes, but some forms (theft of intellectual property and squatting) are handled through civil litigation and are not criminally prosecuted.
  • Civil asset forfeiture is, um, "justified" on the claim that it helps fight illegal narcotics trafficking.
EvilSnack
  • 639
  • 1
  • 5
  • 13