Final answer:
The law allows individuals to be tried in civil and criminal court for separate purposes: criminal trials uphold societal laws and order, while civil trials provide compensation to victims. Arguments for this include comprehensive justice and separate standards of proof. Disadvantages include potential double jeopardy, increased burden on defendants, and risk of inconsistent verdicts.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question explores whether the law is right to allow individuals to be tried in both civil and criminal court. In criminal law, the government prosecutes individuals who have committed acts deemed harmful to society, potentially leading to incarceration and other penalties. Civil law deals with disputes between private parties, often resulting in monetary compensation or specific actions rather than criminal sanctions.
One argument for allowing both civil and criminal trials is the pursuit of comprehensive justice. While a criminal trial aims to uphold societal order and punish wrongdoing, a civil proceeding can offer victims restitution and a form of closure. Moreover, different standards of proof are required in criminal cases (beyond reasonable doubt) versus civil cases (preponderance of evidence), which may necessitate separate trials for a full examination of the facts.
On the other hand, disadvantages of being tried in both courts include the potential for double jeopardy, despite it being constitutionally prohibited in criminal cases. It can also increase the financial and psychological burden on the defendant. Additionally, there's a risk of inconsistent verdicts, which could undermine public confidence in the judicial system.
The discussions around true crime series like "Making a Murderer" emphasize the need for transparency and fairness in the legal system, highlighting the importance of both types of courts. Civic participation, such as serving jury duty, plays a crucial role in ensuring justice is served in both realms.