Compare And Contrast The Criminal And Civil LawEssay Preview: Compare And Contrast The Criminal And Civil LawReport this essayCivil law is concerned and deals with the relationship between individuals and relates to civil rather than criminal wrongs with the aim of compensating the suing party for such wrongs (Gibson, Rigby, Ryan & Tamsitt, 2001, p28.1). A civil action is generally brought by the party who has been injured or otherwise suffered some form of loss as the result of a wrong which only directly affected him (e.g. trespassing into private property). When a civil law is broken, legal action is brought by an individual against another for some form of legal remedy, e.g. damages. In civil suits, the party initiating legal proceedings is referred to as the plaintiff and the party being sued is called the defendant. For a plaintiff to successfully seek damages from the defendant he or she needs to prove their case, this is called the burden of proof. The amount of proof required by the law is called the standard of proof and in civil cases the standard of proof is assessed on the balance of probabilities (Dowler & Miles, 2001, p.32).
Private security officers working in an organisation have limited powers when compared with public police officers. In most instances the private security officer only possesses the power of citizens arrest. In most civil actions, especially those involving private security officers, the basis is not on intended harm but a claim that the defendant was negligent (Purpura, 1998, p 61). Negligence is defined as the liability for breach of a duty to take reasonable care (Gardiner & McGlone, 1998, p 8). Security managers in organisations should take necessary action to ensure the safety and security of individual on their premise. There have been countless lawsuits against the management of organisations for failing to provide adequate protection for it stakeholders. An example of such a civil case is Walter A Stewart v Federated Department Stores, No.15124, Connecticut Supreme Court in 1995 (Purpura, 1998, p 63). Marion
l, was sued on 9 December 1996 by the Association of the State and Local Police Associations for not providing adequate fire protection for its patrons. The organisation reported that because the patrons in a hot place had to evacuate their area from the building on 26 August 1996, and because the police knew the hot place was closed all the patrons were evacuated from the building. In her complaint to the Central Connecticut Police Dept. at approximately 1PM (3-4 July 1997), the Chief Executive Officer of the fire protection company stated that the “operators [of Fire & Emergency Service] were aware of this incident and that the officers responded immediately” (CP&G, p 19). The statement of the Chief Executive Officer was not a legal opinion and, therefore, was not taken into consideration by the investigators. In this case the Department of Public Safety in its written response to Marion County and Fire Services Commission questions alleged that “if a company makes a mistake, where the error was made, the company could not do anything” (McGlone, 1998p 6). In a separate question, the Department of Public Safety cited reasons, including the importance of “common sense or regulation in the public safety business” (Paiding, p 534). There were two other legal issues before the Courts, the one concerning property liability against “public buildings and services, public records, public works”, and public safety. One of those issues involves a potential liability within a business contract against a business entity for violating this contract with its own employee. The contract, by definition, must cover liability for damages and must include “adequate provision of protective equipment, training”, with proper use; however, the clause does not provide for the possibility of “the provisions of the contract be modified or terminated within 12 months or until the breach of that contract is caused by the negligent act of the business entity”. Under the terms of the contract, the breach of the contract is a potential termination of employment, but the company will not be entitled to claims against the breach of the contract on the basis of the breach of contract. Under current law, “the breach of an employment contract is not a crime if the company provides security at a place other than a business premises where they are operating” (Carpenter S, 2003). The only “law” stating that “the breach was an actual or suspected negligence on the part of the company and not deliberate fraud” is the state statute which refers to “good faith”, that is a rule of law. To avoid liability, the breach must be clearly defined. According at 2F. A law defining “good faith” is a section of the United States Code which is amended with a section that “may not prohibit the corporation[s] from committing a breach of a good faith law”. The section defines “good faith” as the belief that the company is reasonably doing a specified duty or by its reasonable effort to comply with the law (Owen, 2004). According to the United States Civil Code, in general, “good faith” means “the reasonable belief that a breach of a good faith law is within the scope of the law, whether as a result of reasonable efforts or a lack of reasonable efforts” (Carpenter S, 2003). We note, however, that state statutes are not binding on courts, so it is important for the United States courts to have the ability to decide what form of law is best handled by corporations, as well as by any state or local law, and to decide on the nature and scope of the breach before making the final decision. However, it is important that all companies are treated with respect to this issue in the same way. To meet the criteria for breach of the law, companies must