# data[].attributes.headline
The difference between criminal and civil law.

# data[].attributes.subject
The difference between criminal and civil law.

# data[].attributes.body
One of the main differences between criminal and civil law are their purposes. Criminal law refers to disputes where the accused has committed an illegal act or immoral conduct that inflicts harm on an individual/society. Where on the other hand, civil law refers to disputes between individuals where the plaintiff alleges that another party has breached their rights. Some examples of criminal offences include speeding, murder, robbery, and rape. Civil disputes include defamation, negligence, trespass, and nuisance. In a criminal matter, the outcome (guilty/not guilty) depends on whether the accused is found to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is responsible for providing the burden of proof in this case. If found guilty, the accused can be imposed a sanction/conviction; this includes imprisonment, fines, and a Community Corrections Order. On the other hand, the verdict of a civil case is determined on the balance of probability. The plaintiff (the person who commences the court action) is responsible for providing the burden of proof, and proving that the accused is liable. If found liable, the victim may be given a civil remedy/damages to restore them to their original position, prior to the incident.

# data[].attributes.body
Farnsworth S. (2012). Arsonist guilty over deadly Black Saturday blaze. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-20/sokaluk-jury-hands-down-verdict/3894526. [accessed 14 March 2024]

Hassall G. and McDermott Q. (2018). Inside the mind of an arsonist. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-10/brendan-sokaluk-inside-the-mind-of-an-arsonist/10464234. [accessed 13 March 2024].

Sciberras A. (2023). Black Saturday arsonist Brendan Sokaluk eligible for parole in June. https://www.9news.com.au/national/brendan-sokaluk-black-saturday-arsonist-eligible-for-parole-in-june/320ba323-13fd-45dc-8211-61236f9ea821. [accessed 13 March 2024].

7NEWS Australia. (2023). One of Victoria’s worst arsonists set to walk free in a legal shock. [YouTube]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8lbVUua7c8. [accessed 14 March 2024].

# data[].attributes.body
The role of the judge is to decide the final outcome of the case and impose relevant sanctions. The role of the jury is to hear the court case and provide a non-biased opinion on whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. Different sanctions which can be applied to a criminal case include imprisonment, fines, and a Community Corrections Order.

Sokaluk was found guilty of death causing arson, his actions led to 17 years and nine months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 years. Two purposes of this sanction were to deter and protect. The severe penalty discouraged the offender and others in society from committing similar offences in the future by demonstrating the dire consequences. Further, removing Sokaluk from society for almost 18 years ensured the safety of the community as he could not commit any more harmful acts. An aggravating factor which may have increased Sokaluk's sentence was his lack of remorse. During his interview, he consistently denied commencing the fires and blamed his cigarette. Contrastingly, a mitigating factor which could have reduced the severity of Sokaluk's sentence were the impacts that imprisonment would have had on his mental health. As his defendant, Jane Dixon, previously stated that he had autism.

# data[].attributes.body
Brendan Sokaluk (the accused) was found guilty of arson causing death. He was accused of deliberately lighting the Churchill fire on the 7th of February, 2009. 10 people were killed, more than 150 homes were razed and 36,000 hectares of land were destroyed in the blaze. Sokaluk's case was heard by the Victorian Supreme Court as he was accused of committing an indictable offence.

In this case, Ray Elston (the prosecutor) had the burden of proof as he was responsible proving that Sokaluk was guilty. The standard of proof describes the level of proof that the prosecution must demonstrate. In this case, Ray Elston had to provide evidence that Brendan Sokaluk was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecutor, Ray Elston, said that Sokaluk “created a web of deceit to try get away with arson, and the cigarette ash explanation given to police was a “furphy”, as the fire was ignited at two different locations.” Jane Dixon (the defendant) claimed that “autistic people are often very poor liars and have trouble keeping a story straight when trying to lie.” She also stated that “What Brendan does in that interview is tell the truth as he perceives it.” Brendan did not present any evidence in court, however, in his interview, Sokaluk claimed that “Part of my cigarette thing fell on the floor, so I got a bit of paper out to grab it and stuff… I thought it was dead and I’ve chucked it out the window, but I didn’t know it had lit up.” Therefore, he denied that he intentionally started the fires.

After he was found guilty, Sokaluk was sentenced a minimum of 17 years and nine months imprisonment, with a 14 year non-parole period. An appeal was made in the Victorian Court of Appeal, to try to increase Sokaluk’s sentence, but this was rejected.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the sanction imposed by the court was reasonable as Sokaluk's actions destroyed over 36,000 hectares of land (including 150 homes) and led to the deaths of 10 people. The loss of homes, family members, and friends would have taken an emotional toll on the community and impacted their lifestyle after the incident. The minimum sentence for manslaughter in Victoria 10 years, with the maximum being 25 years. Considering this, I think that the sentence imposed was somewhat reasonable, but due to his lack of remorse, I think that the sentence (and non-parole period) could have been increased to at least 20 years. Just last year, Sokaluk became eligible for parole, and I think that with all the violent crimes which are currently being committed, there is no way to ensure that Sokaluk would commit such a crime again (if he were to bail). However, spending nearly 18 years would deteriorate anyone's mental health and give them plenty of time to reflect on their actions. Therefore, I feel that he should receive rehabilitation as everyone deserves a chance to become the best version of themselves.