Civil litigation and criminal litigation are very different. Criminal litigation involves the prosecution of actions that have been legally defined as criminal and harmful to the public, so we could say that the primary goal of criminal litigation is to protect the public collectively rather than just the rights of parties to the lawsuit. 

Criminal litigation is brought by the Government’s attorney on behalf of the people, and helps to maintain public order and accountability in society. 

Civil litigation seeks to resolve disputes between one or more parties and provides compensation to the aggrieved party or parties.

Another major difference lies in the burden of proof. In civil litigation cases, the plaintiffs must prove their case by what we call in law, the “preponderance of evidence.” The preponderance standard is defined as the “greater weight of the evidence” in the Karch v. Karch, 885 A.2d 535. While 51% is not a qualitative amount, one can assume that if the evidence is 51% in favor of one side, it has met the preponderance standard. By contrast, in criminal litigation cases, the prosecution, which is a government lawyer, must prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Beyond a reasonable is the highest standard that exists in the court system. While it does not require an assumption of no doubt, it is a very high standard to meet, because all other assumptions of guilt must be unreasonable for this standard to be met. Since the life and liberty of a person are at stake, beyond a reasonable doubt is the appropriately high standard with which to adjudicate criminal claims.