Why do you think the threshold of guilt (beyond Reasonable Doubt vs. preponderance of evidence) is different for criminal and civil cases?

They are different for criminal and civil cases because the legal standard for deciding the criminal outcome follows a different method.

In beyond reasonable doubt, the standard for deciding a criminal charge requires evidence that is sufficient to eliminate any doubts a reasonable person might entertain about whether a claim is more likely to be true than not.

In preponderance of evidence the legal standard for deciding the outcome of civil disputes, requires the evidence to be sufficient that a claim is more likely to be true than not.

They are different because a criminal case is an offense against the state or community but the civil case is a case against member(s) of a community or between individuals.

world war i had a devastating effect on german-americans and their cultural heritage. up until that point   german-americans, as a group, had been spared much of the discrimination, abuse, rejection, collective mistrust experienced by so many different racial and ethnic groups in the history of the united states. indeed, over the years, they had been viewed as a well integrated and esteemed part of american society. all of this change with the outbreak of war.  

the declaration states, “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness….”