David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Topoi 18 (2):117-126 (1999)
There is a substantial literature on the Bayesian approach, and the application of Bayes'' theorem, to legal matters. However, I have found no discussion that explores fully the issue of how a Bayesian juror might be led from an initial "presumption of innocence" to the judgment (required for conviction in criminal cases) that the suspect is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". I shall argue here that a Bayesian juror, if she acts in accord with what the law prescribes, will virtually never reach such a judgment. In section I, I discuss Bayesianism, Bayes'' rule and the relation between them. Section II addresses the two legal notions key to my worries about Bayesian jurors: the presumption of innocence and the reasonable doubt criterion. Section III explores what a Bayesian is to make of these notions, and how the legal system requires her to reason in their light. If I am right, there emerges a conflict between current legal prescriptions and the Bayesian approach. Section IV explores the import of this conflict and how it might be resolved.
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy Philosophy of Science Philosophy of Technology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Michael Strevens (2004). Bayesian Confirmation Theory: Inductive Logic, or Mere Inductive Framework? Synthese 141 (3):365 - 379.
Jean Baratgin & Guy Politzer (2006). Is the Mind Bayesian? The Case for Agnosticism. Mind and Society 5 (1):1-38.
Patrick Suppes (2007). Where Do Bayesian Priors Come From? Synthese 156 (3):441 - 471.
R. Festa (1993). Optimum Inductive Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.
Paul Thagard (2010). Why Wasn't O.J. Convicted? Emotional Coherence in Legal Inference. Cognition and Emotion 17 (3):361-383.
Paul Snow (1997). Nearly Bayesian Uncertain Reasoning Methods. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):779-780.
Franz Dietrich & Christian List (2004). A Model of Jury Decisions Where All Jurors Have the Same Evidence. Synthese 142 (2):175 - 202.
Victor Tadros (2007). Rethinking the Presumption of Innocence. Criminal Law and Philosophy 1 (2):193-213.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads44 ( #101,957 of 1,938,809 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #84,040 of 1,938,809 )
How can I increase my downloads?