Korean Job Discussion Forums

[YTMND]

[iggyb]

Another interesting note - unless things have drastically changed in Korea the last few years - they don't seperate criminal and civil courts. It goes along with the fact you generally have less chance of winning against an employer.

In the US, civil and criminal law courts are seperate. Some states lean more toward the employee - others more toward the employer - but the fact we have civil courts is a sign the system gives the employee a better chance of airing grievances.

I remember ten years ago, expats said the labor board rulings had no legal weight - that there was no system of enforcement. I never checked on it myself, but that is what people said.

I hear now it is different. That is a big advance.

I still doubt seriously the prof would have much of a chance arguing standard practice over the letter of the policy and contract. It doesn't stand up too well in civil courts in the US in front of judges or jury.

[sml7285]

[iggyb]

[iggyb]

sml7285,

My feeling, and it's little more than a feeling, is that having seperate civil courts in the US helps make it a more employee friendly place to work than Korea. That one reason Korea is less employee friendly is because there isn't a distinct civil court system. I guess the labor board is designed to act like one. If it does now have legal standing and muscle to penalize employers that don't honor its decisions, then it does in effect act like a civil court in the US in terms of labor rights.

I would also guess that one reason sueing someone is the national passtime in the US is due in part to having civil courts --- where you don't have to drag someone into a criminal court to sue them.

Another feature is that it allows a form of double-jeopardy, in my opinion:

OJ was found not guilty of murder in a criminal court but found monetarily liable for it in a civil one...

I think OJ probably did it, but I don't like a society in which a person can be found not guilty of a crime in one court system but then forced to pay for that crime in another court system - all backed up by the power of the government.

[YTMND]

Why was OJ Simpson found guilty in one court and not liable in the next trial?

"The burden of proof in a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The fact that the glove didn't fit probably gave at least one juror enough doubt that they were unwilling to vote guilty. The burden on a plaintiff in a civil trial is that he has to prove the defendant's liability "by a preponderance of the evidence." That just means more likely than not." - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080302093114AAid6lw

The person asking had it backwards, but the answer still applies since that person put it back into the correct context.

[iggyb]

The outline of the system is right but one fact was off, and it was a big fact:

1 juror didn't find OJ innocent or couldn't vote for a guilty verdict. He was acquitted in the criminal trial. That means 12 jurors voted unaninmously that he wasn't guilty.

Then, under the civil court system, the jury found him monetarily liable for that murder.

Given the fact that double jeopardy is a cornerstone of American and Western law, I find this deplorable. How can the government back up such a contradictory thing? A guy can be found not guilty of murder by 12 jurors in a criminal case but then taken across the street and made to pay millions of dollars in damages for that same exact crime?

To me, that's double jeopardy. I don't care if one is inprisoning the body and the other is attacking the wallet.

[sml7285]

[YTMND]

[iggyb]

Each state in the US differs here and there in both criminal and civil law and procedures, but they are roughly similar. Not nearly as big a difference as you state...

Next, reasonable doubt isn't 99% sure. It isn't "you must vote not guilty unless you are absolutely sure he's guilty." The meaning of "reasonable doubt" isn't set in stone. It is defined in the minds of each juror. Some lawyers try to help them decide when making their arguments before the jury, but it is still up to the juror to decide when a doubt becomes reasonable.

But, yes, the burden of proof is significantly lower in a civil court and jury verdicts do not have to be unanimous.

I sitll say it smacks of double jeopardy: A man is "proven" innocent by a unanimous criminal court for the charge of murder -- but -- across the street he is found financially liable for the same murder. I believe that is preposterous.

Your opinion to the contrary stands well among many experts. The Supreme Court has obviously upheld the dual systems all these years.

I still say it is preposterous and smacks of double jeopardy.

I said I don't care a hoot whether one court makes decisions about your bodily freedom and another decisions about your wallet. I don't care if the burden of proof is higher in one over the other:

If 1 court of the land defines you as not guilty of a specific crime, another court should not be able to take your money for the same exact crime.

My Supreme Court says I'm wrong. So does the legislative and executive branches of my government.

To which I say, "Pffffffffffttttttt!"

[YTMND]

[liveinkorea316]

iggyb sorry but you cannot prosecute a contract dispute in criminal court. It's a civil matter. It's not a judicial supermarket. The School has to break a government statute in order to prosecute them in criminal court but this is simply a contractual dispute.

The USA is not "one of the only countries with a civil and criminal court". It is a system adapted from the English Legal tradition so it is used in all English speaking countries and many others that are influenced by them too.

[iggyb]

Did I say that the US was one of the only countries like that? I don't remember saying that.

If I did, I mispoke. The point was that Korea doesn't have seperate civil and criminal courts.

[iggyb]

[thunderbird]

I got an unrelated article