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.

Data selection and confounding in the court case of Lucia de Berk

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

On the (ab)use of statistics in the legal case against the nurse Lucia de B

Statistical Issues in Serial Killer Nurse Cases

Searching for a Serial Killer on a Hospital Ward

AAFS (Victorian branch) Symposium: Science and Medicine in the Courts—Learning from the wrongful conviction of Kathleen Folbigg

Suspected serial killers and unsuspected statistical blunders

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

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

Investigating sentence severity with judicial open data -- A case study on sentencing high-tech crime in the Dutch criminal justice system

Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials

A comparison of graphical methods in the case of the murder of Meredith Kercher

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

The effect of verdict system on juror decisions: a quantitative meta-analysis

Mental health in the courtroom: how victim mental health status impacts juror decision-making in a rape case

When jurors’ moral judgments result in jury nullification: moral outrage at the law as a mediator of euthanasia attitudes on verdicts

[Spurious pity--lethal consequences: how helpers turn into offenders]

The role of perceived defendant criminality on attributions and case outcomes

How expert witnesses' counterfactuals influence causal and responsibility attributions of mock jurors and expert judges

Bio-behavioral scientific evidence alters judges' sentencing decision-making: A quantitative analysis

An exploratory examination of intellectual disability and mental illness associated with alleged false confessions