Abstract
There has been much debate on whether Bayesian probabilistic analysis of legal disputes can improve court decision-making. In this paper we ask what Bayesians can learn from problems faced by the courts.
Though debate continues, the Bayesian approach is clearly right for analysing those clearly definable and quantifiable problems which arise in forensic science. When we attempt to generalise and apply these techniques to other forms of evidence some fundamental difficulties arise. Typically there are two responses. The statisticians respond by redefining the question so that it can be answered using orthodox frequentist techniques. Alternatively, some lawyers respond that the evidence should be treated ‘holistically’. The problems are difficult and are general to real life decision-making but only Bayesian probability theory offers an approach for analysing and eventually overcoming them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Case. R v Abadom. All England Reports, 1: 364–369, 1983.
K A J Walsh J S Buckleton and Ian Evett. Who is ‘random man’? Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 31 (4): 463–468, 1991.
Mary P Watson. Decision and inference in litigation. Cardozo Law Review, 13(23):253–1079, November 1991.
Case. People v Castro 545 New York Supplement 985 (SC/NY).
Richard Eggleston. Evidence, Proof and Probability. Law in Context. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 2nd edition, 1983.
Ian Evett. A Bayesian approach to the problem of interpreting glass evidence in forensic science casework. Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 26: 3–18, 1986.
Ian Evett. On meaningful questions: a two-trace transfer problem. Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 27: 375–381, 1987.
Ian Evett and John Buckleton. The interpretation of glass evidence. A practical approach. Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 30: 215–223, 1990.
R D Friedman. Infinite strands, infinitesimally thin: Storytelling, Bayesianism, Hearsay and other evidence. Cardozo Law Review, 14:79–101, 1992.
A J M Garrett and D J Fisher. Combining data from different experiments: Bayesian and Meta-analysis. In C.R. Smith et al (eds), Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods, 273–286. Kluwer Academic Publishers., 1992.
E T Jaynes. Probability theory — the logic of science. in draft, 1993.
R C Lewontin and Daniel L Hartl. Population Genetics in Forensic DNA typing. Science, 254: 1745–1750, December 1991.
Dennis Lindley. A problem in forensic science. Biometrika, 64: 207–213, 1977.
Robert M Oliver and James Q Smith (eds). Influence Diagrams, Belief nets and Decision Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1989.
John W Pratt. Book review of Testing Statistical Hypotheses by E L Lehmann. JASA, 56: 163–166, March 1961.
Bernard Robertson and G A Vignaux. Taking Fact Analysis seriously. Michigan Law Review, 92 (6): 1442–1464, 1993a.
David A Schum and Peter Tillers. Marshalling evidence throughout the process of fact-investigation: a simulation - part iii. investigating fact investigation. unpublished report 89–03, Oct 1989.
Peter Tillers. Webs of things in the mind: A new science of evidence. Michigan Law Review, 87: 1225–1258, May 1989.
Peter Tillers and Eric D. Green. Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence. Kluwer, 1st edition, 1988.
G A Vignaux and Bernard Robertson. Bayesian methods and Court Decision-making. In A Mohammad-Djafari, editor, Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods, Paris, 1992 (Proc 12th MaxEnt Workshop), 85–92. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993b.
G A Vignaux and Bernard Robertson. Wigmore Diagrams and Bayes networks. In A Mohammad-Djafari, editor, Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods, Paris, 1992 (Proc 12th MaxEnt Workshop), 93–98. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993c.
John Henry Wigmore. Principles of judicial proof. Little, Brown and Co, Boston, 2nd edition, 1931.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1996 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vignaux, G.A., Robertson, B. (1996). Lessons from the New Evidence Scholarship. In: Heidbreder, G.R. (eds) Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods. Fundamental Theories of Physics, vol 62. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8729-7_32
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8729-7_32
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4407-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-8729-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive