What does it say about how the burden of proof differs in criminal trials and civil trials?

The burden of proof in criminal trials is much higher than that in civil trials. In a criminal trial, the prosecutor must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning there can be no lingering doubts about their responsibility for the crime. This requires providing substantial evidence and testimony to support their arguments which creates a higher burden of proof.

In contrast, the burden of proof in civil trials is known as “preponderance of evidence,” which means it only needs to be more likely than not that the accused party was responsible for or caused harm in order for a verdict to be reached. This lower standard makes it easier to win cases in civil court compared with those heard before criminal courts. Furthermore, unlike criminal convictions where individuals may face jail time or fines, civil repercussions typically involve an award of damages meant to make up for any losses incurred by the plaintiff as a result of another party’s wrongdoing.