3 ms·
Why should a decision about firing someone (a civil penalty) require criminal standard of evidence (reasonable doubt) instead of civil (preponderance)? If anyt
by joshuamorton 6y ago
Why should a decision about firing someone (a civil penalty) require criminal standard of evidence (reasonable doubt) instead of civil (preponderance)?
If anything, the Obama change made things more consistent. Civil hearings use preponderance, and criminal use a higher standard.
- prepend 6y agoDue process does not mean criminal standards of evidence. It means due process and there are established standards for civil as well as criminal cases.
- joshuamorton 6y agoI'm aware. GP specifically talked about evidentiary standards, hence my response was specifically about evidentiary standards.
- leephillips 6y agoI said “abolish normal evidentiary requirements”. You’re pretending that means “require criminal standard of evidence”. See the problem?