> No, you said that you thought what I was proposing was similar to civil rules.

That was the position you took. You suggested that the two parties should have equal standing, both would present their side of the story and the judgment would follow from that. In other words, the civil system, not the criminal one.

Here is what you said, word for word:

"If I could design society, I would remove the dock and in all court cases have two identical sides of the room - person A (person A could be the state or the Crown) says person B did something, person B says that person A is falsely accusing them of doing something. There's no defendant and victim, just two opposing stories and a trial to establish reasonable fact." [emphasis added]

That describes the civil court system, where the sides have equal standing and the evidence standard is "preponderance of evidence". But then you quoted the criminal standard -- "beyond a reasonable doubt". So I pointed this out to you.

> Big difference, dickhead.

I recommend that you read your own words before objecting to how other people read them.