Evidence and Standards Conflict

In criminal cases the prosecution is required to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. This means that a reasonable person would have little to no doubt whether the defendant was guilty after reviewing the evidence. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard under which the American criminal system works.

The civil system is different in that the plaintiff must prove preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was guilty (except in strict liability cases where the defendant can introduce evidence that he was not negligent). This standard means that the plaintiff must show evidence that is more than clear and convincing that the defendant is liable. Or in other words, it must be more than 51%.

Nothing too interesting about these concepts other than the surprising fact that criminal law has tried to avoid punishing innocent people by requiring a culpable state of mind to convict under most statutes (subjective standard), but the standard they use for evidence is an objective standard.

There seems to be a conflict when the prosecution must prove a subjective mindset to convict, but the evidence he can provide is analyzed objectively.