Final answer:
The statement that a legal dispute cannot be both civil and criminal is false; the U.S. legal system allows for the same case to be heard in both civil and criminal courts, as illustrated by the O.J. Simpson trials.
Step-by-step explanation:
Legal Disputes: Civil and Criminal Nature
The assertion that a legal dispute cannot be both civil and criminal is false. The two branches of law, civil law and criminal law serve distinct functions and address different types of legal concerns. Criminal law deals with offences that are against the state or society, such as felonies and misdemeanours, and result in potential loss of liberty or life. On the other hand, civil law handles disputes between private parties where one party alleges harm by the other, often requiring financial compensation or specific performance.
Cases can indeed traverse the dual court system and be heard in both civil and criminal courts, depending on the nature of the dispute. For instance, O.J. Simpson was acquitted in criminal court but found liable in civil court for the same act. This is not a violation of double jeopardy because each branch of law operates under different standards of proof and seeks different outcomes.
State and federal courts are capable of hearing both civil and criminal law matters. However, federal courts often become involved if the case involves a violation of the U.S. Constitution or federal law. In summary, the dual-court system in the United States allows for the same facts to be examined under different legal standards in both civil and criminal jurisdictions.