Why is it somewhat easier in a civil case for the plaintiff in a jury to gain success against the defendant?

Why is it somewhat easier in a civil case for the plaintiff in a jury to gain success against the defendant than it is for the state (prosecution) in a jury trial against the defendant?Why is it somewhat easier in a civil case for the plaintiff in a jury to gain success against the defendant?
Civil trials and criminal trials have different burdens of proof.





In a civil trial, the plaintiff is only required to prove with a ';preponderance of the evidence'; that the defendant is guilty. This is usually explained to the jury as ';more likely than not';, or in numerical terms, more than 50% likely.





In a criminal trial, it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. There is no good or approved explanation of what this means, and it is very difficult for a judge to instruct a jury on exactly how sure they will be. But it is considered to be a much stricter standard than the more likely than not. I mean, ask yourself, if you have to decide something by knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that it something is or is not correct - you're going to have to be almost certain.





The reason for this difference in burden is of course because the consequences of being convicted in a criminal trial is much larger than in a civil trial.





Edit:





Just to correct one statement made below. Whether hearsay or not is allowed in a trial is not at all relevant to whether it is a criminal or civil trial. In general, hearsay evidence will only be allowed if it is a bench trial (meaning no jury, the judge makes all the decisions). The argument for this is that a judge is less likely to be manipulated or distracted than a jury might be.Why is it somewhat easier in a civil case for the plaintiff in a jury to gain success against the defendant?
Civil cases can, at maximum, only award damages to a plaintiff in a monetary form, and even then, there's still the hassle of collecting. In a criminal case, the government has overpowering resources to impose its penalty, which includes not only monetary fines, but removal of rights, such as personal freedom, and even life in some cases.
They are two different standards of proof.





Civil Case: preponderance of the evidence





Criminal Case: Beyond a reasonable doubt.





For example: OJ preponderance of the evidence linked him to the scene and that is pretty much all they needed. Where as in the criminal trial they had to prove he did it. So link him to the scene, murder weapon, capacity to do it, etc...
The standards of proof are easier for civil case. It's the ';preponderance of the evidence'; vs. criminal which is ';beyond a reasonable doubt.';
because hearsay evidence is admissible in a civil suit where in a criminal case it is inadmissible