Abstract
Say “evidence” and crime and the law are likely to be the first things that come to mind. You would expect Bayes thinking to be particularly useful both to police in sifting evidence and to lawyers and others in court who have to use that evidence. We saw some of this in the very first chapter of this book. Now we’ll look in a little more detail at some problems in the courtroom.
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
Schneps L, Colmez C (2013) Math on trial: how numbers get used and abused in the courtroom. Basic Books, New York
Hill R (2005) Reflections on the cot death cases. Significance 2(1):13−16
Joyce H (2002) Beyond reasonable doubt. Plus Mag (21). https://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue21/features/clark/index. Accessed 4 July 2017
Thompson WC, Schumann EL (1987) Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: the prosecutor’s fallacy and the defense attorney’s fallacy. Law Human Behav 11(3):167−187
Balding DJ (2005) Weight-of-evidence for forensic DNA profiles. Wiley, Chichester
Dawid AP (1993) The Island problem: coherent use of identification evidence. Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London
Aitken CGG, Stoney DA (1991) The use of statistics in forensic science. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, pp 56–57
Canter D, Youngs D (2009) Investigative psychology: offender profiling and the analysis of criminal action. Wiley, Chichester, pp 213–214
Robertson B, Vignaux GA, Berger CEH (2011) Extending the confusion about Bayes. Mod Law Rev 74(3):444−455
Association of Forensic Science Providers (2009) Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. Sci Justice 49(3):161−164
Aitken C, Roberts P, Jackson G (2010) Communicating and interpreting statistical evidence in the administration of criminal evidence: 1. Fundamentals of probability and statistical evidence in criminal proceedings. Royal Statistical Society, London
Kaye DH, Koehler J (1991) Can jurors understand probabilistic evidence. J R Stat Soc Ser A 154(1):75−81.
Kaye DH, Hans VP, Dann M, Farley E, Albertson S (2007) Statistics in the jury box: how jurors respond to Mitochondrial DNA match probabilities. J Empir Leg Stud 4(4):797−834
Fenton N, Neil M (2013) Risk assessment and decision analysis with Bayesian networks. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Kadane JB, Schum DA (1996) A probabilistic analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti evidence. Wiley, New York
Berry DA (2008) The science of doping. Nature 454(7):692−693
Faber K, Sjerps M (2009) Anti-doping researchers should conform to certain statistical standards from forensic science. Sci Justice 49(3):214−215
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jessop, A. (2018). Bayes and the Law. In: Let the Evidence Speak. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71392-2_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71392-2_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71391-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71392-2
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)