Criminal Offences are those which endanger or pose a threat to the social, societal fabric.

A Society, may it be of any kind, even a single family or be it a group of hunters and gatherers, it is at some level supported and sustained on basis of some laws, rules, traditions, ways, methods, etcetera. When someone breaches such laws …, it not only questions the rights of a victim but also the acceptability of such a breach by the society.

The difference between Civil and Criminal offences ignoring their nomenclature meanings, is the acceptability of the society. For instance offences which are ABSOLUTELY restricted that is JUST THE ALLEGED OCCURRING of such an offence disregarding who did it or whether or not in future it is proved that actually the said particular offence was committed, hampers the sense of security of persons at large in the society or attempts to challenge the standards of a society. Take an example of Offence of Rape, whether the person accused did it or not and whether or not it was actually committed, JUST THE ALLEGED OCCURANCE of the offence hampers the sense of security of persons of the society and also attempts to challenge the standards of OUR SOCIETY.

Here 'OUR SOCIETY' is of importance. Which offence hampers the Society depends on the Society itself. For one society it may be a grave offence but for another it may be very common practice or a not so serious offence. Lets take an example of Cannibalism in Humans, it is absolutely prohibited in today's world (society collectively) but even if it may or may not exist can be something acceptable in terms in some society which may be a society of past or some which may be existing and of which we don't know of.

(How the societal standards work through our minds is brilliant. Just take the example of my sentence 'even if it MAY OR MAY NOT exist can be something acceptable in TERMS in some society which may be a society of PAST …' . Just because such an offence is absolutely prohibited in my society I inadvertently submit and sugar coat such sentences which relate to some idea which is perceived to hamper or challenge the standards of my society.)

Thus, the prime point to decide the acceptability of breaches, simply is the GRAVITY of such an offence in CONTEXT of the STANDARDS of a society in which such offence is allegedly committed.

Then what are the other offences whose JUST THE OCCURENCE doesn't hamper the societal standards, that is those who are not so SERIOUS i.e. not so GRAVE to challenge the societal standards or the sense of security of persons? Even though this contradicts the basic understanding that offences are a breach of the laws which the society upholds, one cannot say that only extreme offences breach the fabric and others even though not accepted do not breach the fabric.

For this we must setup a 2 level offence border or rather differentiate on how a offence is remedied. The extreme level offence is something that the society by itself cannot give a perfect remedy for. That is something which has been done is of such nature that it cannot be so reversed in its own way or some other which is seen as or is rather a perfect reversal or for that matter remedy for an offence. And the other offence is of such nature that its perfect remedy is in the reach of the society.

If one asks you what is the perfect remedy for Murder? We will inadvertently say that it is Penalty of Death or Life Imprisonment. But are we really correct in such a sense? Because Death of another for the Death caused by such another is not the PERFECT REMEDY for Murder. The perfect remedy of such a Murder is reversing it totally.

You may now contest that an attempt to murder which didn't amount to murder may be remedied perfectly. But I now bring again the point of 'JUST THE ALLEGED OCCURENCE' of such offence is sufficient to hamper the fabric. Thus any act in furtherance of an act of whose perfect remedy is out of the reach of society is also an extreme level offence. The other level is where the perfect remedy is in scope and is quantifiable in the sense of societal thinking.

I may be wrong here in explaining these things in my own way, maybe under confirmation bias. Please do correct me and help me to strengthen the explanation through the comment/discussion section below.