Criminal vs. Civil Law

Once again, start with the terms. It is typical to say that the criminal law is the part of the law which forbids or commands behavior because behaving in that way or not behaving in another way is disadvantageous to the larger community, not just the two parties involved in the initial behavior. Civil law is said to deal with disputes between individuals where there is a disagreement or an allegation of negligence which may or may not have caused harm to someone (http://www.cscja-acjcs.ca/criminal_civil_law-en.asp?l=4).

I just want to suggest another way of defining criminal and civil law for a government who takes its job to be to punish those who infringe on the rights of others. Criminal law would consume careless negligence resulting in harm because one cannot be allowed to be thoughtless with the lives and welfare of others on the line. It seems civil law would be reserved for contract negotiations (before there is a breach).

As it is today in America, as I understand it, criminal cases can result in various forms of punishment, any goods or resources that are transferred away from the defendant go to the state. Most civil-case settlements or rulings, on the other hand, transfer goods from the defendant to the plaintiff. This would change. Even assuming states can actually be offended, disadvantaged, or harmed by a crime, appropriate criminal cases would include transfers of goods from defendant to victim(s). The damage done to X by Y when Y steals X's $100 (assuming it is not traumatizing, etc.) is mostly remedied when Y is commanded to pay X $150, $400, whatever. Perhaps there would be an additional penalty for the effect the defendant had on the larger society or on the state.

It seems to me that criminal law should include more behavior, that civil law should include less, and that criminal law should include a new type of punishment in its courts: restitution directly to the victim.