Originally Posted by
Airbanda
Presumably lack of evidence required to convince a jury so they were sure that the statutory offence was made out. In UK we require a greater than 50% probability of conviction for prosecution to proceed. Likley to be similar in othe 'common law' jurisdictions.
OTOH the standard required to find an employer liable of failing in duty of care is lower, balance of probability instead of 'sure'.
The alleged rape was in Canada, so I don't know how prosecutors do things there, but in the US I don't think it is quite as formal as assigning a probability, but there is still a judgment made on whether a conviction is likely and in some jurisdictions that is determined by a grand jury. cases which might not prosecuted could range from: "complete lack of evidence the allegations are true" .. to; "It almost certainly happened as alleged, but insufficient evidence exists to have much chance of a conviction". Beyond that, you're correct about Criminal vs Civil decisions. To get a criminal conviction the state much prove it's case "beyond a reasonable doubt" whereas in a civil case the two parties are (theoretically) appearing before the court on an equal footing so it's an either/or proposition with the decision going with the side favored by "The preponderance of evidence". A classic example of the is the OJ Simpson case. The Prosecution could not win a conviction in the criminal case, but the family of the murder victims were able to get a civil judgement in a wrongful death lawsuit for the same murders.