Should both civil and criminal court cases be proven in the same manner?

I assume that you are talking about standards of proof in
the two kinds of cases.  In the US, a prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt (in a criminal case).  By contrast, a plaintiff must only prove that
there is "clear and convincing evidence" that the defendant in an important civil case
is culpable.  I think that it is important to have differences between the two kinds of
cases.

The reason I think this is that criminal cases are
clearly more important than civil cases.  In a criminal case, the defendant can go to
prison or even be executed.  This ought to have a higher standard of proof than would be
required if all that was at stake was money.  It is not to say that money is
unimportant, but it surely is less important than being sent to
prison.

So, I think there should be different standards of
proof since criminal cases have so much more impact on the lives of the
defendants.