Varieties of Legal Probabilism: A Survey

Małgorzata Stefaniak, Rafał Urbaniak

Abstrakt


Legal Probabilism is the view that mathematics, and probability theory in particular, can be used to explicate the standard of legal decisions. While probabilistic tools are sometimes used in courtrooms, the construction of a general model of evidence evaluation remains a challenge. Conceptual difficulties facing Legal Probabilism include the difficulty about conjunction, the difficulty about corroboration and the gatecrasher paradox. These problems need to be addressed before we construct a general model. In this survey we discuss the three difficulties and present some theories proposed as their solutions.Małgorzata Stefaniak, Rafał Urbaniak

Słowa kluczowe


legal probabilism, Bayesian epistemology, legal decision standards

Pełny tekst / Download full text:

PDF (English)

Bibliografia


Aitken, C., Roberts, P., Jackson, G. (2010). Fundamentals of Probability and Statistical Evidence in Criminal Proceedings (Practitioner Guide No. 1). Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses. Royal Statistical Society’s Working Group on Statistics and the Law.

Aitken, C. , Taroni, F. (2004). Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists. Wiley Online Library.

Allen, R., Pardo, M. (2007). The problematic value of mathematical models of evidence. The Journal of Legal Studies, 36(1),107–140.

Ball, V.C. (1960). The moment of truth: probability theory and standards of proof. Vanderbilt Law Review, 14, 807–830.

Bernoulli, J. (1713). Ars conjectandi, opus posthumum. Accedit Tractatus de seriebus infi nitis, et epistola gallicé scripta de ludo pilae reticularis. Bazylea: Thurneysen Brothers.

Bolstad, W.M., Curran, J.M. (2016). Introduction to Bayesian statistics. John Wiley & Sons.

Bovens, L., Hartmann, S. (2004). Bayesian epistemology. Oxford University Press.

Bradley, D. (2015). A Critical Introduction to Formal Epistemology. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Cheng, E. (2012). Reconceptualizing the burden of proof. Yale Law Journal, 122(5), 1254–1273.

Cheng, E.K. (2009). A practical solution to the reference class problem. Columbia Law Review, 109, 2081–2103.

Cohen, J. (1977). The probable and the provable. Oxford University Press.

Cohen, L.J. (1981). Subjective probability and the paradox of the gatecrasher. Arizona State Law Journal, 2(2), 627–634.

Colyvan, M. , Regan, H.M. (2007). Legal decisions and the reference class problem. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 11(4), 274–285.

Colyvan, M., Regan, H.M., Ferson, S. (2001). Is it a crime to belong to a reference class. Journal of Political Philosophy, 9(2), 168–181.

Cullison, A.D. (1969). Probability analysis of judicial fact-fi nding: A preliminary outline of the subjective approach. Toledo Law Review, 1, 538–598.

Dant, M. (1988). Gambling on the truth: the use of purely statistical evidence as a basis for civil liability. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 22, 31–70.

De Finetti, B. (1937). La prévision: ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives. Annales de l’Institut

Henri Poincaré, 7, 1–68. (translated as “Foresight: Its Logical Laws, Its Subjective Sources” in (Kyburg, 1964)).

Enoch, D., Fisher, T. (2015). Sense and sensitivity: Epistemic and instrumental approaches to statistical evidence. Stanford Law Review, 67, 557.

Finkelstein, M.O., Levin, B. (2001). Statistics for Lawyers. Springer.

Franklin, J. (2010). Feature selection methods for solving the reference class problem: Comment on Edward K. Cheng, a practical solution to the reference class problem. Columbia Law Review Sidebar, 110, 12-23.

Haack, S. (2014a). Evidence Matters: Science, Proof, and Truth in the Law. Cambridge University Press.

Haack, S. (2014b). Legal probabilism: an epistemological dissent. In: Haack (2014a), 47–77.

Ho, H.L. (2008). A philosophy of evidence law: Justice in the search for truth. Oxford University Press.

Kaplan, J. (1968). Decision theory and the factfi nding process. Stanford Law Review, 20, 1065–1092.

Kaplow, L. (2014). Likelihood ratio tests and legal decision rules. American Law and Economics Review, 16(1), 1–39.

Kaye, D. (1979). The paradox of the gatecrasher and other stories. Arizona State Law Journal, 1033, 101–110.

Kyburg, H.E. (1964). Studies in subjective probability. John Wiley & Sons.

Lempert, R.O. (1977). Modeling relevance. Michigan Law Review, 75, 1021–1057.

Lindley, D.V. (1970). Introduction to probability and statistics from a Bayesian viewpoint. Cambridge University Press.

Lucy, D. (2013). Introduction to statistics for forensic scientists. John Wiley & Sons.

Miller, D. (2018). Cohen’s criticisms of the use of probability in the law. Lecture at the Sixth World Congress on Universal Logic, Vichy.

Nesson, C.R. (1979). Reasonable doubt and permissive inferences: The value of complexity. Harvard Law Review, 92(6), 1187–1225.

Pettigrew, R. (2011). Epistemic utility arguments for probabilism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Pettigrew, R. (2016). Accuracy and the Laws of Credence. Oxford University Press.

Ramsey, F. (1978). Truth and probability. In: Mellor, D. H., editor, Foundations: Essays in Philosophy, Logic, Mathematics and Economics, 58–100. Routledge. [originally published in 1926].

Resnik, M. (1987). Choices: An Introduction to Decision Theory. University of Minnesota Press.

Robertson, B., Vignaux, G., Berger, C. (2016). Interpreting evidence: evaluating forensic science in the courtroom. John Wiley & Sons.

Savchuk, V., Tsokos, C.P. (2011). Bayesian theory and methods with applications. Atlantis Studies in Probability and Statistics (Book 1), Atlantis Press.

Simon, R.J., Mahan, L. (1970). Quantifying burdens of proof-a view from the bench, the jury, and the classroom. Law and Society Review, 5(3), 319–330.

Smith, M. (2017). When does evidence suffi ce for conviction? Mind, 508(127), 1193–1218.

Stein, A. (2005). Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford University Press.

Taroni, F., Biedermann, A., Bozza, S., Garbolino, P., Aitken, C. (2006). Bayesian networks for probabilistic inference and decision analysis in forensic science. John Wiley & Sons.

Tillers, P., Green, E.D., editors (1988). Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence. The Uses and Limits of Bayesianism. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, volume 109. Springer Netherlands.

Tribe, L.H. (1971a). A further critique of mathematical proof. Harvard Law Review, 84, 1810–1820.

Tribe, L.H. (1971b). Trial by mathematics: Precision and ritual in the legal process. Harvard Law Review, 84(6), 1329–1393.

Underwood, B.D. (1977). The thumb on the scale of justice: Burdens of persuasion in criminal cases. Yale Law Journal, 86(7), 1299–1348.

Wasserman, D.T. (1991). The morality of statistical proof and the risk of mistaken liability. Cardozo Law Review, 935(13).

Wells, G. (1992). Naked statistical evidence of liability: Is subjective probability enough? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(5), 739–752.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.112

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.