Civil litigation should not serve the same criteria as criminal litigation, because the two arenas in the courtroom serve very different purposes. In civil litigation, we are only trying to figure out what happened. In criminal litigation, we need to find out what happened, but we have agreed that it is not at the expense of someone's rights. The criteria need to be different to serve these alternate purposes.
Civil litigation should not share the same criteria as criminal litigation. They are totally different and would not benefit any of the parties. Although it would give the big corporations that have tons of money advantage over the everyday person that is trying to sue them for some reason or another. The average person could not afford to go to court if this happened.
I think that in civil litigation, there is often an element where both parties share some blame for things going wrong (with obvious exceptions, like medical malpractice or consumer safety). In that case, we want a court of equity in which what's decided is what is fair, not who is right and who is wrong.
Holding civil litigation to the high standard of criminal litigation would make it extremely hard for the little person to be able to civilly sue a large corporation for an injustice. The money that a large corporation can spend on a civil case compared to a normal person is astounding. Raising the burden of proof only helps evil corporations become more greedy.
Civil litigation shouldn't share the same criteria as criminal litigation in the United States. Both types of court cases are very different from each other, and making the criteria similar would only cause problems for the legal system. A civil case is nothing like criminal litigation, which most people realize.