Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The aim is to develop a sensible probabilistic model of legal corroboration in response to an attack on the probabilistic approach to legal reasoning due to Cohen. One of Cohen’s arguments is that there is no probabilistic measure of evidential support which satisfactorily captures the situation in which independent witnesses testify to the truth of the same proposition (or independent pieces of evidence converge on a certain claim)—the phenomenon called corroboration (or convergence). We investigate the properties of several probabilistic measures discussed by Cohen, discuss Cohen’s criticism of those measures, and develop our own. Finally, we offer a probabilistic measure of corroboration that evades the critical points raised against the ones discussed so far.

Keywords

Legal probabilism corroboration probabilistic evidence evaluation evidence aggregation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Boole

(1857) On the application of the theory of probabilities to the question of the combination of testimonies or judgments. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 21(4): 597–653.

Bovens

Hartmann

(2003) Bayesian epistemology. Oxford, UK: Oxford Publications.

Cohen

(1977) The Probable and the Provable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dahlman

(2018) Determining the base rate for guilt. Law Probability and Risk 17(1): 15–28.

Ekelöf

(1964) Free evaluation of evidence. Scandinavian Studies in Law 8: 47–66.

Fenton

Neil

(2013) Risk Assessment and Decision Analysis with Bayesian Networks. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Friedman

(2000) A presumption of innocence, not of even odds. Stanford Law Review 52(4): 873–887.

Gardiner

(2019) Legal burdens of proof and statistical evidence. In: Coady

Chase

(eds) Routledge Handbook of Applied Epistemology. Abingdon: Routledge.

Goldman

(1967) A causal theory of knowing. The Journal of Philosophy 64(12): 357–372.

10.

Hailperin

(1986) Boole’s Logic and Probability: A Critical Exposition from the Standpoint of Contemporary Algebra, Logic and Probability Theory. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

11.

Keynes

(1921) A Treatise on Probability. London: Macmillan.

12.

Kruskal

(1988) Miracles and statistics: The casual assumption of independence. Journal of the American Statistical Association 83(404): 929–940.

13.

Posner

(1999) An economic approach to the law of evidence. Stanford Law Review 51: 1477–1546.

14.

Robertson

Vignaux

Berger

CEH

(2016) Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom. London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

15.

Sahlin

N-E

(1986) How to be 100% certain 99.5% of the time. The Journal of Philosophy 83(2): 91–111.

16.

Shafer

(1986) The combination of evidence. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 1(3): 155–179.

17.

Taroni

Biedermann

Bozza

Garbolino

Aitken

(2006) Bayesian Networks for Probabilistic Inference and Decision Analysis in Forensic Science. London: John Wiley & Sons.

18.

Thomson

(1986) Liability and individualized evidence. Law and Contemporary Problems 49(3): 199–219.

19.

Zabell

(1988) The probabilistic analysis of testimony. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 20(3): 327–354.

20.

Zajenkowski

Styła

Szymanik

(2011) A computational approach to quantifiers as an explanation for some language impairments in schizophrenia. Journal of Communication Disorders 44(6): 595–600.

Probabilistic models of legal corroboration

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References