The burden of proof in civil cases is fairly low. Plaintiffs win if they are 51 percent convincing, and then they collect 100 percent of the damages. Is this result reasonable? Should plaintiffs in civil cases be required to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt instead of by the preponderance of the evidence? Or, if plaintiffs are only 51 percent convincing, should they get only 51 percent of the requested damages? Explain all the relevant concepts.

The burden of proof in civil cases is fairly low. Plaintiffs win if they are 51 percent convincing, and then they collect 100 percent of the damages. Is this result reasonable? Should plaintiffs in civil cases be required to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt instead of by the preponderance of the evidence? Or, if plaintiffs are only 51 percent convincing, should they get only 51 percent of the requested damages? Explain all the relevant concepts.