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.

English Translation of Poisson's "Recherches sur la probabilité des jugements en matière criminelle et en matière civile" / "Researches into the Probabilities of Judgements in Criminal and Civil Cases"

English Translation of Cournot's "Exposition de la théorie des chances et des probabilités" / "Exposition of the Theory of Chances and Probabilities"

Gauging Court Adjudication: Qualification And Quantification

Theory of Probability. A Historical Essay

Harold Jeffreys's Theory of Probability Revisited

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

Reading Theorie Analytique des Probabilites

A Bayesian Model of the Litigation Game

A Novel Approach to Probability

Ramsey's contributions to probability and legal theory

A Case-Based Study Of Jury Instructions In Hong Kong

On a new limit theorem in probability theory (Translation of 'Sur un nouveau théorème-limite de la théorie des probabilités')

Resolving the Cohenian Paradox in Judicial Probability Theory

Theory of Probability. An Elementary Treatise against a Historical Background

On Rational Jurisprudence: A Problem in Bayesian Confirmation Theory

Elementary Statistics on Trial (the case of Lucia de Berk)

On the Poisson approximation of random diagonal sums of Bernoulli matrices

The Meaning of Binomial Distribution

On the Empirical Generalizations of the Concept of the Concrete Crime

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

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