Bayes and the Law.

Although the last forty years has seen considerable growth in the use of statistics in legal proceedings, it is primarily classical statistical methods rather than Bayesian methods that 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 paper 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 include misconceptions by the legal community about Bayes' theorem, over-reliance on the use of the likelihood ratio and the lack of adoption of modern computational methods. We argue that Bayesian Networks (BNs), which automatically produce the necessary Bayesian calculations, provide an opportunity to address most concerns about using Bayes in the law.

[1]  Morris D. Forkosch The Nature of Legal Evidence , 1971 .

[2]  C. Aitken,et al.  Expressing evaluative opinions: a position statement , 2011 .

[3]  D. Schum,et al.  A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence , 1996 .

[4]  N. Fenton Science and law: Improve statistics in court , 2011, Nature.

[5]  S. Zabell,et al.  Benjamin Peirce and the Howland Will , 1980 .

[6]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment , 2002 .

[7]  Jonathan Whitaker,et al.  Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks. , 2002, Journal of forensic sciences.

[8]  Daniel Berger Improving legal reasoning using Bayesian probability methods , 2015 .

[9]  R. Meester,et al.  The Evidential Value in the DNA Database Search Controversy and the Two‐Stain Problem , 2003, Biometrics.

[10]  Madhuri S. Mulekar,et al.  Weight-of Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles , 2008, Technometrics.

[11]  Stuart H. James,et al.  Principles of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: Theory and Practice , 2005 .

[12]  G. Gigerenzer Reckoning with Risk : Learning to Live with Uncertainty , 2002 .

[13]  Monica Musio,et al.  From Statistical Evidence to Evidence of Causality , 2013, 1311.7513.

[14]  J. Koehler On Conveying the Probative Value of DNA Evidence: Frequencies, Likelihood Ratios and Error Rates , 1996 .

[15]  P. Bickel,et al.  Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions: Data from Berkeley , 1975, Science.

[16]  G. Morrison The Likelihood-Ratio Framework and Forensic Evidence in Court: A Response to R v T , 2012 .

[17]  C. Barden,et al.  Proficiency Testing Trends Following the 2009 National Academy of Sciences Report, “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward” , 2016 .

[18]  David L. Faigman,et al.  Bayes' theorem in the trial process , 1988 .

[19]  D. Kaye Revisiting Dreyfus: A More Complete Account of a Trial by Mathematics , 2006 .

[20]  S. Fienberg Bayesian Models and Methods in Public Policy and Government Settings , 2011, 1108.2177.

[21]  P. Good Applying Statistics in the Courtroom: A New Approach for Attorneys and Expert Witnesses , 2001 .

[22]  Adrian F. M. Smith,et al.  Bayesian Statistics 5. , 1998 .

[23]  Marjan Sjerps,et al.  How clear is transparent? Reporting expert reasoning in legal cases , 2012 .

[24]  Paul Roberts,et al.  Assessing the probative value of DNA evidence: guidance for judges, lawyers, forensic scientists and expert witnesses , 2012 .

[25]  R. Park Character Evidence Issues in the O.J. Simpson Case–Or, Rationales of the Character Evidence Ban, With Illustrations from the Simpson Case , 1996 .

[26]  I. Good When batterer turns murderer , 1995, Nature.

[27]  R. Nobles,et al.  Misleading statistics within criminal trials , 2005, Medicine, science, and the law.

[28]  J. Haigh Taking Chances: Winning with Probability , 1999 .

[29]  D. Kaye Two Fallacies About DNA Data Banks for Law Enforcement , 2002 .

[30]  N. Morton,et al.  Likelihood ratios for DNA identification. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence , 2010, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[32]  Sen. M.I.,et al.  Statistical Science in the Courtroom , 2001 .

[33]  Norman Fenton,et al.  Avoiding probabilistic reasoning fallacies in legal practice using Bayesian networks , 2011 .

[34]  Amanda B. Hepler,et al.  Object-Oriented Graphical Representations of Complex Patterns of Evidence , 2007 .

[35]  Martin Neil,et al.  Inference in hybrid Bayesian networks using dynamic discretization , 2007, Stat. Comput..

[36]  S L Lauritzen,et al.  Probabilistic expert systems for handling artifacts in complex DNA mixtures. , 2011, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[37]  A. P. Dawid,et al.  Probability and Evidence , 2008 .

[38]  T. C. Marshall,et al.  Statistical confidence for likelihood‐based paternity inference in natural populations , 1998, Molecular ecology.

[39]  Ian W. Evett,et al.  Interpreting DNA Evidence: A Review , 2003 .

[40]  Ton Broeders Decision-making in the Forensic Arena , 2009 .

[41]  Peter Tillers,et al.  Introduction to Symposium on Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence: The Uses and Limits of Bayesianism , 2008 .

[42]  James Robertson,et al.  Statistical Science in the Courtroom , 2001 .

[43]  D J Balding,et al.  Evaluating DNA profile evidence when the suspect is identified through a database search. , 1996, Journal of forensic sciences.

[44]  Philip Dawid Statistics on trial. , 2005 .

[45]  P. Tillers,et al.  Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence , 1988 .

[46]  Jan De Kinder,et al.  Expressing evaluative opinions: a position statement. , 2011, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[47]  Ivo Alberink,et al.  Fingermark Evidence Evaluation Based on Automated Fingerprint Identification System Matching Scores: The Effect of Different Types of Conditioning on Likelihood Ratios , 2014, Journal of forensic sciences.

[48]  S. James Press,et al.  Subjective and Objective Bayesian Statistics , 2002 .

[49]  A. Dawid,et al.  Forensic identification with imperfect evidence , 1998 .

[50]  J. Curran An introduction to Bayesian credible intervals for sampling error in DNA profiles , 2005 .

[51]  W. Casscells,et al.  Interpretation by physicians of clinical laboratory results. , 1978, The New England journal of medicine.

[52]  R. Meester,et al.  Why the Effect of Prior Odds Should Accompany the Likelihood Ratio When Reporting DNA Evidence , 2004 .

[53]  Franco Taroni,et al.  Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists , 2004 .

[54]  Anne S. Hsu,et al.  When 'neutral' evidence still has probative value (with implications from the Barry George Case). , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[55]  Ian W. Evett,et al.  Avoiding the transposed conditional , 1995 .

[56]  J S Buckleton,et al.  The fallacy of independence testing and the use of the product rule. , 2001, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[57]  A. Dawid,et al.  The difficulty about conjunction , 1987 .

[58]  A. Nordgaard,et al.  Assessment of forensic findings when alternative explanations have different likelihoods-"Blame-the-brother"-syndrome. , 2012, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[59]  C. Aitken,et al.  Forensic science evidence in question , 2011 .

[60]  Laurence H. Tribe,et al.  Trial by mathematics: precision and ritual in the legal process , 1971, Legal Theory and the Natural Sciences Volume VI.

[61]  J. Buckleton,et al.  Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation , 2004 .

[62]  J. Koehler The Base Rate Fallacy Myth , 1993 .

[63]  Ashley F. Emery,et al.  Forensic Metrology: Scientific Measurement and Inference for Lawyers, Judges, and Criminalists , 2014 .

[64]  Stephen E. Fienberg,et al.  Statistics and the Law , 1987 .

[65]  Michael O. Finkelstein,et al.  Statistics for Lawyers , 2002 .

[66]  I. Evett,et al.  The nature of forensic science opinion--a possible framework to guide thinking and practice in investigations and in court proceedings. , 2006, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[67]  J. Kadane A Statistical Analysis of Adverse Impact of Employer Decisions , 1990 .

[68]  Michael O. Finkelstein,et al.  A Bayesian Approach to Identification Evidence , 1970 .

[69]  Ralf Dresner,et al.  Probability And Evidence , 2016 .

[70]  Bernard Robertson,et al.  Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom , 1995 .

[71]  R. Nichols,et al.  Interpreting DNA Evidence: Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists , 1999, Heredity.

[72]  James Franklin,et al.  Case comment—United States v. Copeland, 369 F. Supp. 2d 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2005): quantification of the ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ standard , 2006 .

[73]  J A Lambert,et al.  A model for case assessment and interpretation. , 1998, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[74]  David J. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Local computations with probabilities on graphical structures and their application to expert systems , 1990 .

[75]  Eric R. Ziegel,et al.  The Evolving Role of Statistical Assessments as Evidence in the Courts , 1990 .

[76]  J. Koehler Error and Exaggeration in the Presentation of DNA Evidence at Trial , 1993 .

[77]  NeilMartin,et al.  Inference in hybrid Bayesian networks using dynamic discretization , 2007 .

[78]  David H. Kaye,et al.  Prove It with Figures: Empirical Methods in Law and Litigation , 1997 .

[79]  R. Meester,et al.  On the (ab)use of statistics in the legal case against the nurse Lucia de B , 2006, math/0607340.

[80]  D. K. Kagehiro,et al.  Handbook of psychology and law , 1992 .

[81]  Claude Roux,et al.  Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists, by Colin G. G. Aitken and Franco Taroni 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons, 2004. , 2006 .

[82]  Christophe Champod,et al.  Computation of Likelihood Ratios in Fingerprint Identification for Configurations of Any Number of Minutiæ , 2007, Journal of forensic sciences.

[83]  Jean-Marc Rohrbasser,et al.  J. Haigh — Taking Chances. Winning with Probability , 2003 .

[84]  Cedric Neumann,et al.  Quantifying the weight of evidence from a forensic fingerprint comparison: a new paradigm , 2012 .

[85]  Willem A. Wagenaar,et al.  The proper seat , 1988 .

[86]  Mike Redmayne Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice , 2001 .

[87]  Colin Aitken,et al.  Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science , 2006 .

[88]  J. Koehler Probabilities in the Courtroom: An Evaluation of the Objections and Policies , 1992 .

[89]  Norman Fenton,et al.  Calculating and understanding the value of any type of match evidence when there are potential testing errors , 2014, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[90]  A R Forrest Sally Clark--a lesson for us all. , 2003, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[91]  D. Humphries,et al.  Reckoning with risk: learning to live with uncertainty , 2003, British Journal of Sports Medicine.

[92]  I. Evett,et al.  A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework , 1998 .

[93]  FOS : Probability and Statistics in Forensic Science Programme , 2014 .

[94]  I. Freckelton,et al.  Expert Evidence: Law, Practice, Procedure and Advocacy , 2005 .

[95]  Norman Fenton,et al.  Risk Assessment and Decision Analysis with Bayesian Networks , 2012 .

[96]  David A. Lagnado,et al.  A General Structure for Legal Arguments About Evidence Using Bayesian Networks , 2013, Cogn. Sci..

[97]  Andrea L. Roth Safety in Numbers?: Deciding When DNA Alone Is Enough to Convict , 2010 .

[98]  John C. Gottfried,et al.  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? , 2007 .

[99]  Stephen E Fienberg,et al.  Legal and Statistical Aspects of Some Mysterious Clusters , 1990 .

[100]  N. Fenton A General Structure for Legal Arguments Using Bayesian Networks , 2010 .

[101]  Peter Donnelly,et al.  Appealing statistics. , 2007, Medicine, science, and the law.

[102]  N. Fenton,et al.  Bayes and the Law : Supplementary Material , 2016 .

[103]  Martin Edman The Probable and the Provable , 1980 .

[104]  W. Thompson,et al.  Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials , 1987 .

[105]  R. Allen,et al.  The Common Law Theory of Experts: Deference or Education? , 1993 .

[106]  W. Thompson DNA Evidence in the O.J. Simpson Trial , 1996 .

[107]  Franco Taroni,et al.  How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. , 2003, Journal of forensic sciences.

[108]  Elizabeth C. Hirschman,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[109]  Olle Häggström,et al.  The Cult of Statistical Significance , 2009 .

[110]  I. Evett,et al.  Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T. , 2011, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[111]  Michael O. Finkelstein Basic Concepts of Probability and Statistics in the Law , 2009 .

[112]  Norman Fenton Assessing evidence and testing appropriate hypotheses. , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[113]  S. James Press,et al.  Subjective and objective Bayesian statistics : principles, models, and applications , 2003 .

[114]  Bernard Robertson,et al.  Extending the Confusion About Bayes , 2011 .

[115]  Peter Tillers,et al.  Bayes Wars Redivivus -- An Exchange , 2010 .

[116]  Steve Olson The Case against DNA , 2013 .

[117]  W. Wagenaar A Bayesian Discussion of the Position of Expert Witnesses , 1988 .

[118]  David A. Schum,et al.  Analysis of Evidence: Frontmatter , 2005 .

[119]  Christian Jowett Lies, Damned Lies, and DNA Statistics: DNA Match Testing, Bayes' Theorem, and the Criminal Courts , 2001, Medicine, science, and the law.

[120]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems , 1988 .

[121]  L. Moxey,et al.  Perception problems of the verbal scale. , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[122]  P. Murphy Evidence, proof, and facts : a book of sources , 1998 .

[123]  L. Cosmides,et al.  Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty , 1996, Cognition.

[124]  David J. Balding Comment on: Why the effect of prior odds should accompany the likelihood ratio when reporting DNA evidence , 2004 .

[125]  R. Hill Reflections on the cot death cases , 2005, Medicine, science, and the law.

[126]  Norman E. Fenton,et al.  Comparing risks of alternative medical diagnosis using Bayesian arguments , 2010, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[127]  M. Saks,et al.  Assessing Evidence: Proving Facts , 2005 .

[128]  Wing K Fung User-friendly programs for easy calculations in paternity testing and kinship determinations. , 2003, Forensic science international.

[129]  C. Aitken,et al.  Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists: Aitken/Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists , 2005 .