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.

On Rational Jurisprudence: A Problem in Bayesian Confirmation Theory

Reconciling Bayesian Epistemology and Narration-based Approaches to Judiciary Fact-finding

Bayesian reasoning and the prior in court: not legally normative but unavoidable

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

Discounting testimony with the argument ad hominem and a Bayesian congruent prior model.

Truth, knowledge, and the standard of proof in criminal law

Evidential Confirmation as Transformed Probability

Subtleties in Bayesian decision-theoretic analysis for forensic findings: Notes on recent discussion of the role of validation study data in rational decision making

Juror understanding of the weight of evidence presented as a likelihood ratio and the impact on the deliberative process: a response to Buckleton, et al.

Gauging Court Adjudication: Qualification And Quantification

Resolving the Cohenian Paradox in Judicial Probability Theory

Where the Truth Lies: A Paraconsistent Approach to Bayesian Epistemology

Bayesian Reasoning and Evidence Communication

Harold Jeffreys's Theory of Probability Revisited

Learning from conditional probabilities

Bayesian persuasion in lawyer-client communication

A Bayesian Model of the Litigation Game

Effects of Judicial Pre-judgment on Conviction

New theory about old evidence

Thomas Bayes's Bayesian Inference

New normative standards of conditional reasoning and the dual-source model