268:, Bayes' theorem is valuable in studying evidence rules. For example, it can be used to model relevance. It teaches that the relevance of evidence that a proposition is true depends on how much the evidence changes the prior odds, and that how much it changes the prior odds depends on how likely the evidence would be found (or not) if the proposition were true. These basic insights are also useful in studying individual evidence rules, such as the rule allowing witnesses to be impeached with prior convictions.
308:'s BISC (Berkeley Initiative in Soft Computing). Another example is the increasing amount of work, by people both in and outside law, on "argumentation" theory. Also, work on Bayes nets continues. Some of this work is beginning to filter into legal circles. See, for example, the many papers on formal approaches to uncertainty (including Bayesian approaches) in the Oxford journal: Law, Probability and Risk
33:
135:
256:
of a match) would be found if the defendant was the source with the odds that it would be found if defendant was not the source. If it is ten times more likely that the testimony of a match would occur if the defendant was the source than if not, then the factfinder should multiply their prior odds
203:
of an event and its inverse. Specifically, it compares the probability of finding particular evidence if the accused were guilty, versus if they were not guilty. An example would be the probability of finding a person's hair at the scene, if guilty, versus if just passing through the scene. Another
247:
Suppose, that the proposition to be proven is that defendant was the source of a hair found at the crime scene. Before learning that the hair was a genetic match for the defendant’s hair, the factfinder believes that the odds are 2 to 1 that the defendant was the source of the hair. If they used
286:
Some observers believe that in recent years (i) the debate about probabilities has become stagnant, (ii) the protagonists in the probabilities debate have been talking past each other, (iii) not much is happening at the high-theory level, and (iv) the most interesting work is in the
260:
Bayesian skeptics have objected to this use of Bayes’ theorem in litigation on a variety of grounds. These run from jury confusion and computational complexity to the assertion that standard probability theory is not a normatively satisfactory basis for adjudication of rights.
295:
about the probabilities debate in law rests on observations of the arguments made by familiar protagonists in the legal academy. In fields outside of law, work on formal theories relating to uncertainty continues unabated. One important development has been the work on
236:. It provides a way of updating, in light of new information, one’s probability that a proposition is true. Evidence scholars have been interested in its application to their field, either to study the value of
248:
Bayes’ theorem, they could multiply those prior odds by a “likelihood ratio” in order to update her odds after learning that the hair matched the defendant’s hair. The likelihood ratio is a
335:(5% show positive) versus the general risk of having cancer (1% in general): the ratio is 1:5, or 20% risk, of having breast cancer when a mammogram shows a positive result.
50:
97:
275:
in a limited set of circumstances in litigation (such as integrating genetic match evidence with other evidence), and that assertions that
69:
76:
391:
178:
116:
145:
83:
54:
65:
420:
415:
291:
study of the efficacy of instructions on Bayes’ theorem in improving jury accuracy. However, it is possible that this
160:
216:
scholars, the study of evidence in recent decades has become broadly interdisciplinary, incorporating insights from
156:
43:
90:
365:
309:
410:
264:
Bayesian enthusiasts have replied on two fronts. First, they have said that whatever its value in
276:
233:
225:
204:
issue would be finding a person's DNA where they lived, regardless of committing a crime there.
384:"Bayes' Theorem in the Court of Appeal | Law Articles", Bernard Robertson, Tony Vignaux (on
320:
272:
237:
229:
196:
253:
17:
297:
213:
404:
195:
relates to the probability of finding evidence in relation to the accused, where
305:
301:
241:
200:
32:
292:
265:
217:
386:
355:
340:
332:
288:
249:
221:
280:
327:
In the medical examples, a comparison is made between the evidence of
328:
163:. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.
338:
A court case which argued the probabilities, with DNA evidence, is
360:
128:
26:
228:. One area of particular interest and controversy has been
152:
271:Second, they have said that it is practical to use
57:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
283:determinations are nonsensical or inconsistent.
252:derived by comparing the odds that the evidence (
232:. Bayes' theorem is an elementary proposition of
300:" such as has been carried on, for example, at
257:by ten, giving posterior odds of 20 to one.
8:
179:Learn how and when to remove this message
117:Learn how and when to remove this message
377:
359:- court case about Bayes' Theorem with
7:
55:adding citations to reliable sources
319:There are some famous cases where
25:
240:, or to help determine facts at
133:
31:
66:"Evidence under Bayes' theorem"
42:needs additional citations for
1:
193:evidence under Bayes' theorem
18:Evidence under Bayes theorem
159:the claims made and adding
437:
279:is inappropriate for
366:Prosecutor's fallacy
51:improve this article
421:Forensic statistics
416:Bayesian statistics
277:probability theory
234:probability theory
226:probability theory
144:possibly contains
238:rules of evidence
189:
188:
181:
146:original research
127:
126:
119:
101:
16:(Redirected from
428:
395:
382:
323:can be applied.
254:expert testimony
184:
177:
173:
170:
164:
161:inline citations
137:
136:
129:
122:
115:
111:
108:
102:
100:
59:
35:
27:
21:
436:
435:
431:
430:
429:
427:
426:
425:
401:
400:
399:
398:
383:
379:
374:
351:
317:
210:
185:
174:
168:
165:
150:
138:
134:
123:
112:
106:
103:
60:
58:
48:
36:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
434:
432:
424:
423:
418:
413:
403:
402:
397:
396:
376:
375:
373:
370:
369:
368:
363:
350:
347:
346:
345:
336:
321:Bayes' theorem
316:
313:
298:soft computing
273:Bayes' theorem
230:Bayes' theorem
209:
206:
197:Bayes' theorem
187:
186:
169:September 2008
141:
139:
132:
125:
124:
39:
37:
30:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
433:
422:
419:
417:
414:
412:
409:
408:
406:
393:
389:
388:
381:
378:
371:
367:
364:
362:
358:
357:
353:
352:
348:
343:
342:
337:
334:
331:suggested by
330:
326:
325:
324:
322:
314:
312:
310:
307:
303:
299:
294:
290:
284:
282:
278:
274:
269:
267:
262:
258:
255:
251:
245:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
207:
205:
202:
199:concerns the
198:
194:
183:
180:
172:
162:
158:
154:
148:
147:
142:This article
140:
131:
130:
121:
118:
110:
99:
96:
92:
89:
85:
82:
78:
75:
71:
68: –
67:
63:
62:Find sources:
56:
52:
46:
45:
40:This article
38:
34:
29:
28:
19:
411:Evidence law
392:LawIntl-2451
385:
380:
354:
339:
318:
285:
270:
263:
259:
246:
211:
192:
190:
175:
166:
143:
113:
104:
94:
87:
80:
73:
61:
49:Please help
44:verification
41:
306:Lotfi Zadeh
208:Explanation
201:probability
191:The use of
405:Categories
372:References
333:mammograms
293:skepticism
266:litigation
218:psychology
153:improve it
77:newspapers
387:R v Adams
356:R v Adams
341:R v Adams
289:empirical
250:statistic
222:economics
157:verifying
107:July 2013
349:See also
315:Examples
302:Berkeley
281:judicial
214:evidence
151:Please
91:scholar
390:),
329:cancer
304:under
224:, and
212:Among
93:
86:
79:
72:
64:
242:trial
98:JSTOR
84:books
70:news
361:DNA
311:.
244:.
155:by
53:by
407::
220:,
394:.
344:.
296:"
182:)
176:(
171:)
167:(
149:.
120:)
114:(
109:)
105:(
95:·
88:·
81:·
74:·
47:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
