I am familiar with the difference between "Preponderance of the Evidence" and "reasonable doubt".
Do you know what they have in common? Those who make such decisions, Is evidence as the base for making their decision.
Isn't that strange that in courts of law one must utilize evidence to win a case.
For civil cases one must simply convince the jury that the crime was most likely committed by the defendant.
In a criminal case the jury must be sure the evidence is of sufficient unarguable truth that there is no doubt as to its validity.
Both rely upon the weighing of the evidence.