Do you think defendants should have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted? or do you think a lesser burden of proof, like the preponderance of evidence in needed in civil cases, is more appropriate? explain your reasoning.

I believe that defendants should be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt to be convicted. Here's why.

There are a lot of false criminal accusations going around, where an innocent person gets charged with a large crime.

In these cases, there is no evidence, no witnesses, just 2 people sharing different stories, one of which is false. Yet, the defendant, who is telling the truth about being innocent, gets found guilty.

This happens more so in juvenile cases, due to the fact that there is no jury in juvenile courts.

Imagine a 12-13 year old getting charged with murder, and there is absolutely no proof whatsoever, but the judge finds them guilty, convicts them, and locks them up for 4 years. Imagine how that would affect their life.

Innocent people are suffering because they get convicted with no reasoning.

This is why I believe they need to  be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted.

I hope this helps, and have a nice day!

counter-terrorism incorporates the practice, military tactics, techniques, and strategy that government, military, law enforcement, business, and intelligence agencies use to combat or prevent terrorism.

basically prevent, pursue, protect, and prepare, google it if you need more info