Beyond a reasonable doubt vs. balancing probabilities

[Harvey]

Which makes more sense to use to conclude a criminal case? I'd say the latter.

For example, OJ Simpson got off in the criminal case because the jurors did not find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but he did not get off in the civil case because it was based upon balancing probabilities.

Also, beyond a reasonable doubt is too subjective and can be biased.

Of course, I also favor a decentralized civil code and the inquisitorial system over the common law and adversarial system, we have, so I think the Justice System needs a serious change.

Since you don't like our U.S. Constitution, you can and should head for another country. Sooner would be better.

Or stick around and get your ass accused of some major crime you didn't actually commit based solely on evidence that suggests you "probably" (but not conclusively) did it, and we'll see how long you hold to your dumb ass sense of mob justice and how loud you whine when they haul you off to prison.