Abstract:In criminal trials, evidence often involves a degree of uncertainty and decision-making includes moving from the initial presumption of innocence to inference about guilt based on that evidence. The jurors’ ability to combine evidence and make accurate intuitive probabilistic judgments underpins this process. Previous research has shown that errors in probabilistic reasoning can be explained by a misalignment of the evidence presented with the intuitive causal models that people construct. This has been explored in abstract and context-free situations. However, less is known about how people interpret evidence in context-rich situations such as legal cases. The present study examined participants’ intuitive probabilistic reasoning in legal contexts and assessed how people’s causal models underlie the process of belief updating in the light of new evidence. The study assessed whether participants update beliefs in line with Bayesian norms and if errors in belief updating can be explained by the causal structures underpinning the evidence integration process. The study was based on a recent case in England where a couple was accused of intentionally harming their baby but was eventually exonerated because the child’s symptoms were found to be caused by a rare blood disorder. Participants were presented with a range of evidence, one piece at a time, including physical evidence and reports from experts. Participants made probability judgments about the abuse and disorder as causes of the child’s symptoms. Subjective probability judgments were compared against Bayesian norms. The causal models constructed by participants were also elicited. Results showed that overall participants revised their beliefs appropriately in the right direction based on evidence. However, this revision was done without exact Bayesian computation and errors were observed in estimating the weight of evidence. Errors in probabilistic judgments were partly accounted for, by differences in the causal models representing the evidence. Our findings suggest that understanding causal models that guide people’s judgments may help shed light on errors made in evidence integration and potentially identify ways to address accuracy in judgment.

Evaluating evidence in linked crimes with multiple offenders

A Statistical Approach to Crime Linkage

Conditional Evidence Theory and Its Application in Knowledge Discovery

Complex Network Modeling of Evidence Theory

A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence

The Role of the Bayes Factor in the Evaluation of Evidence

A Bayesian Hierarchical Model for Criminal Investigations

Calculating the Likelihood Ratio for Multiple Pieces of Evidence

Visualizing the Consequences of Evidence in Bayesian Networks

Conflicting evidence combination from the perspective of networks

A Bayesian framework to evaluate evidence in cases of alleged cheating with secret codes in sports

Building Evidence Graphs for Network Forensics Analysis

Forensic identification: the Island Problem and its generalisations

Methods used to link crimes using behaviour: A literature review

Police evaluation of evidence: statistical format and evidence type

The effect of confession evidence on conviction, and considering alternative scenarios as remedy in a sample of police officers

Social Network Analysis Applied to Criminal Networks: Recent Developments in Dutch Law Enforcement

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

Bayesian evidence synthesis as a flexible alternative to meta-analysis: A simulation study and empirical demonstration

Implementing statistical learning methods through Bayesian networks. Part 1: a guide to Bayesian parameter estimation using forensic science data

Who Packed the Drugs? Application of Bayesian Networks to Address Questions of DNA Transfer, Persistence, and Recovery from Plastic Bags and Tape