Civil suits often include damages of a punitive nature with large amounts imposed on the balance of probabilities.
In criminal cases, fines can be imposed but require conviction beyond reasonable doubt but those fines are often much less than punitive damages.
Since the purpose of punitive damages is, well, punitive: why doesn’t it require a conviction?
Losing money is tough, but losing the ability to go outside when you want is a much worse penalty. Criminal convictions most often result in prison, so the standards of criminal conviction are different than civil cases. I think this makes sense to most people familiar with the system.
Neither fines levied by the state nor punitive damages require criminality. For example, parking offences are not criminal and are usually punished by fines.
Only punishments that involve deprivation of liberty require a criminal conviction.
The difference is between a civil action and criminal prosecution.
A civil action pits citizen vs. citizen (substitute org for citizen). The law limits the punishment one citizen can levy on another to monetary damages (and possibly a public apology). The proof standard is the preponderance of the evidence (>50% chance the alleged harm occurred). Juries decide awards based on proportionality and cognizant of the respondent's ability to pay.
Criminal prosecution pits The People of the state against the individual charged with criminal offense. Punishments go well beyond $ fines, to include incarceration, and in the extreme, the death penalty. The proof standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning there is no reasonable explanation for what happened other than criminal intent -- a much more rigorous proof standard than in a civil suit.
