I am NOT proposing that we get rid of the civil court system. I AM saying that it has overstepped its authority and acted as a back-up court for criminal cases.
How can you say the civil court has "overstepped it's authority" and acted as a "back up court for criminal cases" when the cases are brought forward by completely different parties and the penalties are different?
There are some fundamental points here you don't quite understand.
You hit someone over the head with a baseball bat. They receive permament brain damage. The action was a crime. The state can prosecute you for the crime. The state can inflict punishment for the crime if you are convicted. You can go to jail. The state is the one who has standing to prosecture you became you violated the law.
The citizen you injured is not "made whole" just by the fact that the state choose to prosecute you. The citizen has the right to seek redress for the damage you did to him in civil court. He's brain damaged and unable to work and the civil court will determine if you are responsible for damages. The citizen has standing to sue you because of the damage you did to him.
The fact that your action was against the law is irrelevant to his case. You could commit an action that damaged him that was within the law and he could still seek redress. (It will matter to the Jury though, which is why the civil suits usually wait until after the criminal charges are resolved. A conviction makes a stronger case in civil court)
It is entirerely possible that the state was unable to meet the higher standard of proof required in criminal court and that the state's prosecution of you was unsuccesful. You were found "Not Guilty."
In the civil suit, the citizen you injured does not have to meet the higher standards used in criminal court. They don't have to prove you were responsible "beyond a reasonable doubt." Your liberty is NOT on the line as you won't go to jail if you loose. If you loose you are not being punished by the state for the crime, you are instead attempting to "make the victim whole" by compensating them for the damage you caused by your actions. That's why you could win the criminal trail and loose the civil trail.
The ability of a person to seek redress from the person who "harmed" them is at the very heart of the civil court system. You can't restrict that by, for example, saying that someone can't seek civil damages against someone who also committed a crime against them, without destroying the system.
Now, if you faced the possibility of jail time for losing a CIVIL Case, after you'd already beat the rap, in Criminal Court, than your argument that civil court was a "backup" to criminal court would make sense.
In criminal court, you are being "punished" by the state for your offense.
In civil court, you are paying restitution to the wronged party in an attempt to make them whole. (Note that so-called "punitive damages" are only awarded after the determination of responsibility has been made. Those extra damages are suppossed to make up for the grevious act you committed against the party you wronged. They aren't punishment by the state)