he plaintiff in a civil case and the government case have a burden to prove their case to the judge and jury to prevail. If they fail to do so, they lose the case, meaning a civil defendant pays no damages and a criminal defendant walks free. In the famous OJ Simpson murder case, the case, the defendant was found not guilty of a crime, but liable in a subsequent lawsuit based on the same facts.
Should both civil and criminal court cases be proven in the same manner? In other words, should either preponderance of evidence and beyond reasonable doubt be abolished and/or replaced with one standard of proof? Why?
