1932

Abstract

Although the use of statistics in legal proceedings has considerably grown in the last 40 years, primarily classical statistical methods rather than Bayesian methods have been used. Yet the Bayesian approach avoids many of the problems of classical statistics and is also well suited to a broader range of problems. This article reviews the potential and actual use of Bayes in the law and explains the main reasons for its lack of impact on legal practice. These reasons include misconceptions by the legal community about Bayes' theorem, overreliance on the use of the likelihood ratio, and the lack of adoption of modern computational methods. We argue that Bayesian networks, which automatically produce the necessary Bayesian calculations, provide an opportunity to address most concerns about using Bayes in the law.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-041715-033428
2016-06-01
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/statistics/3/1/annurev-statistics-041715-033428.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-041715-033428&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Agena Ltd 2016. AgenaRisk.. http://www.agenarisk.com/
  2. Aitken C, Berger CEH, Buckleton JS, Champod C, Curran J. et al. 2011. Expressing evaluative opinions: a position statement. Sci. Justice 51:1–2 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aitken CGG, Taroni F. 2004. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2nd ed..
  4. Alberink I, de Jongh A, Rodriguez C. 2014. Fingermark evidence evaluation based on automated fingerprint identification system matching scores: the effect of different types of conditioning on likelihood ratios. J. Forensic Sci. 59:70–81 [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson T, Schum DA, Twining W. 2005. Analysis of Evidence Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  6. Balding DJ. 2004. Weight-of-Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles Chichester, UK: Wiley
  7. Balding DJ, Donnelly P. 1994. Prosecutor's fallacy and DNA evidence. Crim. Law Rev. 1994:711–22 [Google Scholar]
  8. Balding DJ, Donnelly P. 1996. Evaluating DNA profile evidence when the suspect is identified through a database search. J. Forensic Sci. 41:599–603 [Google Scholar]
  9. BayesFusion 2016. GeNIe Modeler: Complete Modeling Freedom. http://www.bayesfusion.com/#!genie-modeler/lf73d
  10. Berger CEH, Buckleton J, Champod C, Evett I, Jackson G. 2011. Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgement in R v. T. Sci. Justice 51:43–49 [Google Scholar]
  11. Berger D. 2014. Improving legal reasoning using Bayesian probability methods PhD Thesis, Queen Mary Univ. London
  12. Brown v. Smith 137 N.C.App. 160, 526 S.E.2d. 686 2000.
  13. Casscells W, Graboys TB. 1978. Interpretation by physicians of clinical laboratory results. N. Engl. J. Med. 299:999–1001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cohen LJ. 1977. The Probable and the Provable Oxford, UK: Clarendon
  15. Cole v. Cole 74 N.C.App. 247, 328 S.E.2d 446, aff'd, 314 N.C. 660, 335 S.E.2d897 1985.
  16. Collins A, Morton NE. 1994. Likelihood ratios for DNA identification. PNAS 91:6007–11 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones P, Lambert JA. 1998a. A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Sci. Justice 38:231–39 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. 1998b. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Sci. Justice 38:151–56 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cosmides L, Tooby J. 1996. Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition 58:1–73 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dawid AP. 1987. The difficulty about conjunction. J. R. Stat. Soc. D 36:91–97 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dawid AP. 2005. Statistics on trial. Significance 2:6–8 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dawid AP, Mortera J. 1998. Forensic identification with imperfect evidence. Biometrika 85:835–49 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dawid AP, Mortera J. 2008. Probability and evidence. Handbook of Probability: Theory and Applications T Rudas 403–22 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  24. Dawid AP, Musio M, Fienberg SE. 2015. From statistical evidence to evidence of causality. Bayesian Anal. doi:10.1214/15-BA968
  25. Donnelly P. 2005. Appealing statistics. Significance 2:46–48 [Google Scholar]
  26. Edwards W. 1991. Influence diagrams, Bayesian imperialism, and the Collins case: an appeal to reason. Cardozo Law Rev. 13:1025–79 [Google Scholar]
  27. European Research Council 2015. Effective Bayesian modelling with knowledge before data. http://bayes-knowledge.com/
  28. Evett IW. 1995. Avoiding the transposed conditional. Sci. Justice 35:127–31 [Google Scholar]
  29. Evett IW, Foreman LA, Jackson G, Lambert JA. 2000. DNA profiling: a discussion of issues relating to the reporting of very small match probabilities. Crim. Law Rev.341–55
  30. Evett IW, Gill PD, Jackson G, Whitaker J, Champod C. 2002. Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks. J. Forensic Sci. 47:520–30 [Google Scholar]
  31. Evett IW, Weir BS. 1998. Interpreting DNA Evidence: Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Assoc.
  32. Faigman DL, Baglioni AJ. 1988. Bayes' theorem in the trial process. Law Hum. Behav. 12:1–17 [Google Scholar]
  33. Fenton NE. 2011. Science and law: Improve statistics in court. Nature 479:36–37 [Google Scholar]
  34. Fenton NE. 2014. Assessing evidence and testing appropriate hypotheses. Sci. Justice 54:502–4 [Google Scholar]
  35. Fenton NE, Berger D, Lagnado DA, Neil M, Hsu A. 2013a. When “neutral” evidence still has probative value (with implications from the Barry George Case). Sci. Justice 54:274–87 [Google Scholar]
  36. Fenton NE, Lagnado DA, Neil M. 2013b. A general structure for legal arguments using Bayesian networks. Cogn. Sci. 37:61–102 [Google Scholar]
  37. Fenton NE, Neil M. 2000. The Jury Fallacy and the use of Bayesian nets to simplify probabilistic legal arguments. Math. Today 36:180–87 [Google Scholar]
  38. Fenton NE, Neil M. 2010. Comparing risks of alternative medical diagnosis using Bayesian arguments. J. Biomed. Inform. 43:485–95 [Google Scholar]
  39. Fenton NE, Neil M. 2011. Avoiding legal fallacies in practice using Bayesian networks. Aust. J. Leg. Philos. 36:114–50 [Google Scholar]
  40. Fenton NE, Neil M. 2012. Risk Assessment and Decision Analysis with Bayesian Networks Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
  41. Fenton NE, Neil M, Hsu A. 2014. Calculating and understanding the value of any type of match evidence when there are potential testing errors. Artif. Intell. Law 22:1–28 [Google Scholar]
  42. Fienberg SE. 1989. The Evolving Role of Statistical Assessments as Evidence in the Courts New York: Springer-Verlag
  43. Fienberg SE. 2011. Bayesian models and methods in public policy and government settings. Stat. Sci. 26:212–26 [Google Scholar]
  44. Fienberg SE, Finkelstein MO. 1996. Bayesian statistics and the law. Bayesian Statistics 5 JM Bernardo, JO Berge, AP Dawid, AFM Smith 129–46 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  45. Fienberg SE, Kaye DH. 1991. Legal and statistical aspects of some mysterious clusters. J. R. Stat. Soc. A 154:61–74 [Google Scholar]
  46. Finkelstein MO. 2009. Basic Concepts of Probability and Statistics in the Law New York: Springer
  47. Finkelstein MO, Fairley WB. 1970. A Bayesian approach to identification evidence. Harv. Law Rev. 83:489–517 [Google Scholar]
  48. Finkelstein MO, Levin BA. 2001. Statistics for Lawyers New York: Springer
  49. Foreman LA, Champod C, Evett IW, Lambert JA, Pope S. 2003. Interpreting DNA evidence: a review. Int. Stat. Rev. 71:473–95 [Google Scholar]
  50. Forrest AR. 2003. Sally Clark—a lesson for us all. Sci. Justice 43:63–64 [Google Scholar]
  51. Freckelton I, Selby H. 2005. Expert Evidence: Law, Practice, Procedure and Advocacy Pyrmont, Aust: Lawbook Co, 3rd ed..
  52. Fung WK. 2003. User-friendly programs for easy calculations in paternity testing and kinship determinations. Forensic Sci. Int. 136:22–34 [Google Scholar]
  53. Gastwirth JL. 2000. Statistical Science in the Courtroom New York: Springer
  54. Gigerenzer G. 2002. Reckoning with Risk: Learning to Live with Uncertainty London: Penguin
  55. Gill R. 2014. How to become a convicted serial killer (without killing anyone). Justice Gap Aug. 1. http://thejusticegap.com/2014/08/become-convicted-serial-killer-without-killing-anyone/
  56. Good IJ. 1995. When batterer turns murderer. Nature 375:541 [Google Scholar]
  57. Good PI. 2001. Applying Statistics in the Courtroom: A New Approach for Attorneys and Expert Witnesses Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
  58. Haigh J. 2003. Taking Chances: Winning with Probability Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed..
  59. Hepler AB, Dawid AP, Leucari V. 2007. Object-oriented graphical representations of complex patterns of evidence. Law Probab. Risk 6:275–93 [Google Scholar]
  60. Hill R. 2005. Reflections on the cot death cases. Significance 2:13–16 [Google Scholar]
  61. Isaac Newton Institute 2016. Probability and Statistics in Forensic Science. https://www.newton.ac.uk/event/fos
  62. Jackson G, Aitken C, Roberts P. 2013. Practitioner guide no. 4. Case assessment and interpretation of expert evidence: guidance for judges, lawyers, forensic scientists and expert witnesses. London: R. Stat. Soc http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/∼cgga/Guide-4-WEB.pdf
  63. Jackson G, Jones S, Booth G, Champod C, Evett IW. 2006. The nature of forensic science opinion—a possible framework to guide thinking and practice in investigations and in court proceedings. Sci. Justice 46:33–44 [Google Scholar]
  64. James SH, Kish PE, Sutton TP. 2005. Principles of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: Theory and Practice Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
  65. Jowett C. 2001. Lies, damned lies, and DNA statistics: DNA match testing Bayes' theorem, and the criminal courts. Med. Sci. Law 41:194–205 [Google Scholar]
  66. Kadane JB. 1990. A statistical analysis of adverse impact of employer decisions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 85:607–14 [Google Scholar]
  67. Kadane JB. 2008. Statistics in the Law: A Practitioner's Guide, Cases, and Materials Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  68. Kadane JB, Schum DA. 1996. A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
  69. Kaye DH. 2001. Two fallacies about DNA databanks for law enforcement. Brooklyn Law Rev. 67:179–206 [Google Scholar]
  70. Kaye DH. 2007. Revisiting “Dreyfus”: a more complete account of a trial by mathematics. Minn. Law Rev. 91:825–35 [Google Scholar]
  71. Koehler JJ. 1992. Probabilities in the courtroom: an evaluation of the objections and policies. Handbook of Psychology and Law DK Kagehiro, WS Laufer 167–84 New York: Springer-Verlag [Google Scholar]
  72. Koehler JJ. 1993a. Error and exaggeration in the presentation of DNA evidence at trial. Jurimetrics 34:21–39 [Google Scholar]
  73. Koehler JJ. 1993b. The base rate fallacy myth. Psycoloquy 4:49 [Google Scholar]
  74. Langley W. 2012. The case against DNA. Telegraph Mar. 6. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/9115916/The-case-against-DNA.html
  75. Lauritzen SL, Spiegelhalter DJ. 1988. Local computations with probabilities on graphical structures and their application to expert systems (with discussion). J. R. Stat. Soc. B 50:2157–224 [Google Scholar]
  76. Lucy D, Schaffer B. 2007. Nature of Legal Evidence Univ. Edinburgh, Scotland. http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/∼cgga/nature-of-evidence.pdf
  77. Marshall TC, Slate J, Kruuk LEB, Pemberton JM. 1998. Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol. Ecol. 7:639–55 [Google Scholar]
  78. Meester R, Collins M, Gill R, van Lambalgen M. 2007. On the (ab)use of statistics in the legal case against the nurse Lucia de B. Law Probab. Risk 5:233–50 [Google Scholar]
  79. Meester R, Sjerps M. 2003. The evidential value in the DNA database search controversy and the two-stain problem. Biometrics 59:727–32 [Google Scholar]
  80. Meester R, Sjerps M. 2004. Why the effect of prior odds should accompany the likelihood ratio when reporting DNA evidence. Law Probab. Risk 3:51–62 [Google Scholar]
  81. Meier P, Zabell S. 1980. Benjamin Peirce and the Howland Will. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 75:497–506 [Google Scholar]
  82. Morrison GM. 2012. The likelihood ratio framework and forensic evidence in court: a response to RvT. Int. J. Evid. Proof 16:1 [Google Scholar]
  83. Mullen C, Spence D, Moxey L, Jamieson A. 2014. Perception problems of the verbal scale. Sci. Justice 54:154–58 [Google Scholar]
  84. Murphy P. 2003. Evidence, Proof, and Facts: A Book of Sources Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  85. National Research Council 2009. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  86. Neil M, Tailor M, Marquez D. 2007. Inference in hybrid Bayesian networks using dynamic discretization. Stat. Comput. 17:219–33 [Google Scholar]
  87. Nobles R, Schiff D. 2005. Misleading statistics within criminal trials: the Sally Clark case. Significance 2:17–19 [Google Scholar]
  88. Nordgaard A, Hedell R, Ansell R. 2012. Assessment of forensic findings when alternative explanations have different likelihoods—“Blame-the-brother”-syndrome. Sci. Justice 52:226–36 [Google Scholar]
  89. Nuemann C, Evett IW, Skerrett J. 2011. Quantifying the weight of evidence from a forensic fingerprint comparison: a new paradigm. J. R. Stat. Soc. A 175:1–26 [Google Scholar]
  90. Nulty & Ors v. Milton Keynes Borough Council Nulty & Ors v. Milton Keynes Borough Council EWCA Civ 15 24 January 2013.
  91. Pearl J. 1988. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems Palo Alto, CA: Kaufmann
  92. People v. Collins 438 P.2d 33 (68 Cal. 2d 319 1968.
  93. People v. Puckett A121368 (Cal. Ct. App 2009.
  94. Press SJ. 2002. Subjective and Objective Bayesian Statistics: Principles, Models, and Applications Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
  95. Puch-Solis R, Roberts P, Pope S, Aitken C. 2012. Practitioner guide no. 2. Assessing the probative value of DNA evidence: guidance for judges, lawyers, forensic scientists and expert witnesses. London: R. Stat. Soc http://www.rss.org.uk/Images/PDF/influencing-change/rss-assessing-probative-value.pdf
  96. R v. Adams, [1996].EWCA Crim 222
  97. R v. Adams, [1998].1 Cr App R 377
  98. R v. Alan James Doheny and Gary Adams, [1996].EWCA Crim 728
  99. R v. Deen, [1994]. EWCA Crim Case No: 90/1523/X3
  100. R v. George, [2007]. EWCA Crim 2722
  101. R v. T, [2010]. EWCA Crim 2439
  102. Redmayne M. 1995. DNA evidence, probability and the courts. Crim. Law Rev. 1995:464–82 [Google Scholar]
  103. Redmayne M, Roberts P, Aitken C, Jackson G. 2011. Forensic science evidence in question. Crim. Law Rev. 2011:347–56 [Google Scholar]
  104. Roberts P, Aitken C, Taroni F, Biedermann A. 2013. Practitioner guide no. 3. The logic of forensic proof: inferential reasoning in criminal evidence and forensic science. London: R. Stat. Soc http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/∼cgga/Guide-3-WEB.pdf
  105. Robertson B, Vignaux GA, Berger CEH. 2011. Extending the confusion about Bayes. Mod. Law Rev. 74:444–55 [Google Scholar]
  106. Robertson B, Vignaux T. 1995. Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom Chichester, UK: Wiley
  107. Robertson B, Vignaux T. 1997. Bayes' theorem in the Court of Appeal. Crim. Lawyer January:4–5 [Google Scholar]
  108. Robertson B, Vignaux T. 1998. Don't teach statistics to lawyers. ! Proc Fifth Int. Conf. Teach. Stat.541–47 Singapore: [Google Scholar]
  109. Roth A. 2010. Safety in numbers?: deciding when DNA alone is enough to convict. New York Univ. Law Rev. 85101–53 [Google Scholar]
  110. Royal Statistical Society 2015. Statistics and the Law http://www.rss.org.uk/RSS/Influencing_Change/Statistics_and_the_law/RSS/Influencing_Change/Current_projects_sub/Statistics_and_the_law.aspx
  111. Saks MJ, Thompson WC. 2003. Assessing evidence: proving facts. Handbook of Psychology in Legal Contexts D Carson, R Bull 329–45 Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  112. Schneps L, Colmez C. 2013. Math on Trial New York: Basic Books
  113. Sjerps M, Berger C. 2012. How clear is transparent? Reporting expert reasoning in legal cases. Law Probab. Risk 11:317–29 [Google Scholar]
  114. Spiegelhalter DJ. 2013. Court of Appeal bans Bayesian probability (and Sherlock Holmes). Understanding Uncertainty Feb. 25. http://understandinguncertainty.org/court-appeal-bans-bayesian-probability-and-sherlock-holmes
  115. State of New Jersey v. J.M. Spann 130 N.J. 484: 617 A.2d 247 1993.
  116. State v. Jackson 320 N.C. 452, 358 S.E.2d 679 1987.
  117. Taroni F, Aitken C, Garbolino P, Biedermann A. 2014. Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2nd ed..
  118. Thompson J, Danielson S, Hartmann E, Bucheger D, Koplitz J. 2001. Trial by Probability: Bayes' Theorem in Court Work. Pap., Univ. Wis. Stout. https://www.uwstout.edu/mscs/upload/Trial-by-Probability.pdf
  119. Thompson WC. 1996. DNA evidence in the O.J. Simpson trial. Color. Law Rev. 67:827–57 [Google Scholar]
  120. Thompson WC, Schumann EL. 1987. Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials. Law Hum. Behav. 11:167–87 [Google Scholar]
  121. Thompson WC, Taroni F, Aitken CGG. 2003. How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. J. Forensic Sci. 48:47–54 [Google Scholar]
  122. Tillers P, Gottfried J. 2007. Case comment—United States v. Copeland, 369 F. Supp. 2d 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2005): a collateral attack on the legal maxim that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is unquantifiable?. Law Probab. Risk 5:5135–57 [Google Scholar]
  123. Tillers P, Green E. 1988. Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence: The Uses and Limits of Bayesianism Dordrecht, the Neth: Kluwer Academic
  124. Tribe LH. 1971. Trial by mathematics. Harv. Law Rev. 84:1329–93 [Google Scholar]
  125. Triggs CM, Buckleton JS. 2004. Comment on: Why the effect of prior odds should accompany the likelihood ratio when reporting DNA evidence. Law Probab. Risk 3:73–82 [Google Scholar]
  126. Univ. North Carol 2009. North Carolina Trial Judges' Bench Book District Court Edition 1 Family Law Ch. 10: Paternity, ed. CD Howell, JS Simmons Chapel Hill: Univ. North Carolina Sch. Gov.
  127. U.S. ex. Rel. DiGiacomo v. Franzen 680 F.2d 515 (7th Cir.) 1982.
  128. Vosk T, Emery AF. 2014. Forensic Metrology: Scientific Measurement and Inference for Lawyers, Judges, and Criminalists Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
  129. Wagenaar WA. 1988. The proper seat: a Bayesian discussion of the position of expert witnesses. Law Hum. Behav. 12:499–510 [Google Scholar]
  130. Zeisel H, Kaye D. 1997. Prove It with Figures: Empirical Methods in Law and Litigation New York: Springer-Verlag
  131. Ziliak ST, McCloskey DN. 2008. The Cult of Statistical Significance Ann Arbor: Univ. Michigan Press
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-041715-033428
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-041715-033428
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error