IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v185y2022is2ps620-s643.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A probabilistic formalisation of contextual bias: From forensic analysis to systemic bias in the criminal justice system

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Cuellar
  • Jacqueline Mauro
  • Amanda Luby

Abstract

Researchers have found evidence of contextual bias in forensic science, but the discussion of contextual bias is currently qualitative. We formalise existing empirical research and show quantitatively how biases can be propagated throughout the legal system, all the way up to the final determination of guilt in a criminal trial. We provide a probabilistic framework for describing how information is updated in a forensic analysis setting by using the ratio form of Bayes' rule. We analyse results from empirical studies using this framework and employ simulations to demonstrate how bias can be compounded where experiments do not exist. We find that even minor biases in the earlier stages of forensic analysis can lead to large, compounded biases in the final determination of guilt in a criminal trial.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Cuellar & Jacqueline Mauro & Amanda Luby, 2022. "A probabilistic formalisation of contextual bias: From forensic analysis to systemic bias in the criminal justice system," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(S2), pages 620-643, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:185:y:2022:i:s2:p:s620-s643
    DOI: 10.1111/rssa.12962
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12962
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rssa.12962?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anders Stockmarr, 1999. "Likelihood Ratios for Evaluating DNA Evidence When the Suspect is Found Through a Database Search," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 55(3), pages 671-677, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yuk-Ka Chung & Yue-Qing Hu & Wing K. Fung, 2010. "Evaluation of DNA Mixtures from Database Search," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(1), pages 233-238, March.
    2. Giulia Cereda, 2017. "Impact of Model Choice on LR Assessment in Case of Rare Haplotype Match (Frequentist Approach)," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 44(1), pages 230-248, March.
    3. Ronald Meester & Marjan Sjerps, 2003. "The Evidential Value in the DNA Database Search Controversy and the Two-Stain Problem," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 727-732, September.
    4. David J. Balding, 2002. "The DN A Database Search Controversy," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 58(1), pages 241-244, March.
    5. Nicholas Scurich & Richard S. John, 2011. "Trawling Genetic Databases: When a DNA Match is Just a Naked Statistic," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(s1), pages 49-71, December.
    6. Chung, Yuk-Ka & Fung, Wing K. & Hu, Yue-Qing, 2010. "Familial database search on two-person mixture," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(8), pages 2046-2051, August.
    7. C. J. Skinner, 2007. "The probability of identification: applying ideas from forensic statistics to disclosure risk assessment," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 170(1), pages 195-212, January.
    8. Geir Storvik & Thore Egeland, 2007. "The DNA Database Search Controversy Revisited: Bridging the Bayesian–Frequentist Gap," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(3), pages 922-925, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:185:y:2022:i:s2:p:s620-s643. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.