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.

Perpetrator knowledge: a Bayesian account

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

On Rational Jurisprudence: A Problem in Bayesian Confirmation Theory

A Bayesian Hierarchical Model for Criminal Investigations

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

How information about perpetrators' nature and nurture influences assessments of their character, mental states, and deserved punishment

Evaluating evidence in linked crimes with multiple offenders

Gauging Court Adjudication: Qualification And Quantification

A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence

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

Knowledge in Miscellaneous Provisions of Criminal Law:Basing on the Explanation of Expressive Crime

Bloodstain pattern analysis & Bayes: A case report

On the Empirical Generalizations of the Concept of the Concrete Crime

AIDING AND ABETTING AGAINST PHEOMENAL FORMS OF CRIME

The Broken-Windows Theory of Crime: A Bayesian Approach

On Primary Guilty Mind

Murder or manslaughter: the role of premeditation and associated behavioural characteristics

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

Motive on the mind: Explanatory preferences at multiple stages of the legal-investigative process

Modeling of Human Criminal Behavior using Probabilistic Networks

Retributive reactions to suspected offenders: the importance of social categorizations and guilt probability