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.

A Probabilistic Formalisation of Contextual Bias: from Forensic Analysis to Systemic Bias in the Criminal Justice System

A probabilistic formalization of contextual bias in forensic analysis: Evidence that examiner bias leads to systemic bias in the criminal justice system

Bias is persistent: Sequencing case information does not protect against contextual bias in criminal risk assessment

A Causal Framework to Evaluate Racial Bias in Law Enforcement Systems

A Bayesian approach for the analysis of error rate studies in forensic science

Contextual bias by Forensic Document Examination trainees: An empirical study from China

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

A statistical framework for fair predictive algorithms

The effects of cognitive bias, examiner expertise, and stimulus material on forensic evidence analysis

From understanding to justifying: Computational reliabilism for AI-based forensic evidence evaluation

Algorithmic Bias in Recidivism Prediction: A Causal Perspective

How Endogenous System Bias Can Distort Decision-Making in Criminal Justice Systems

Fairness Evaluation in Presence of Biased Noisy Labels

Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Language

The role of collider bias in understanding statistics on racially biased policing

Quantifying Program Bias

Accounting for bias due to outcome data missing not at random: comparison and illustration of two approaches to probabilistic bias analysis: a simulation study

Defence Against the Modern Arts: the Curse of Statistics "Score-based likelihood ratios"

A Simulation Based Dynamic Evaluation Framework for System-wide Algorithmic Fairness

Fair and Effective Policing for Neighborhood Safety: Understanding and Overcoming Selection Biases

Using Bayes factors to limit forensic testimony to forensics: composite hypotheses