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?

Am not really sure but i think yes they should

Explanation:

the first part of the statute of limitations is the standard deadline, which gives victims of medical malpractice a certain number of years -- usually anywhere from two to six years, depending on the state -- after the malpractice occurred within which to file a lawsuit.