Geometry in the Courtroom

Noah Giansiracusa,Cameron Ricciardi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1709.05662
2017-09-17
Abstract:There has been a recent media blitz on a cohort of mathematicians valiantly working to fix America's democratic system by combatting gerrymandering with geometry. While statistics commonly features in the courtroom (forensics, DNA analysis, etc.), the gerrymandering news raises a natural question: in what other ways has pure math, specifically geometry and topology, been involved in court cases and legal scholarship? In this survey article, we collect a few examples with topics ranging from the Pythagorean formula to the Ham Sandwich Theorem, and we discuss some jurists' perspectives on geometric reasoning in the legal realm. One of our goals is to provide math educators with engaging real-world instances of some abstract geometric concepts.
History and Overview
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
This paper attempts to explore the application of geometry in the courtroom and its impact on the legal field. Specifically, the author has collected several examples, showing how pure mathematical concepts, especially geometry and topology, from the Pythagorean theorem to the ham - sandwich theorem, are used in actual legal cases or legal academic research. One goal of the paper is to provide some practical application cases of abstract geometric concepts for mathematics educators so that they can teach these contents more vividly. The paper also discusses the use of geometric reasoning in the legal field and the views of judges and legal scholars on these methods. Through these examples, the author hopes to reveal the interaction between mathematics and law and explore the potential and limitations of geometry in solving legal problems. For example, the paper mentions the issue of constituency delimitation (i.e., the "gerrymandering" phenomenon) and how geometry can be used to detect and prevent such unfair constituency delimitation. In addition, the paper also explores the question of whether law can be established on an axiomatic system like Euclidean geometry, pointing out that while mathematics can avoid ambiguity through a strict axiomatic system, law needs to deal with concepts that cannot be precisely defined, so it is sometimes beneficial to retain a certain degree of ambiguity in law.