IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/v36y2007p107-140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Problematic Value of Mathematical Models of Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald J. Allen
  • Michael S. Pardo

Abstract

This paper discusses mathematical modeling of the value of particular items of evidence. We demonstrate that such formal modeling has only limited use in explaining the value of legal evidence, much more limited than those investigators who construct and discuss the models assume, and thus that the conclusions they draw about the value of evidence are unwarranted. This is done through a discussion of several recent examples that attempt to quantify evidence relating to carpet fibers, infidelity, DNA random-match evidence, and character evidence used to impeach a witness. This paper makes the following contributions. Most important, it is another demonstration of the complex relationship between algorithmic tools and legal decision making. Furthermore, at a minimum it highlights the need for both analytical and empirical work to accommodate the reference-class problem and the risk of failing to do so.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald J. Allen & Michael S. Pardo, 2007. "The Problematic Value of Mathematical Models of Evidence," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(1), pages 107-140, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:36:y:2007:p:107-140
    DOI: 10.1086/508269
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/508269
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/508269?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhihui Li & Yao Liu & Xiyuan Hu & Guiqiang Wang, 2022. "A new uniform framework of source attribution in forensic science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Antonio Nicita & Matteo Rizzolli, 2014. "In Dubio Pro Reo. Behavioral Explanations of Pro-defendant Bias in Procedures," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 60(3), pages 554-580.
    3. Matteo Rizzolli & Margherita Saraceno, 2013. "Better that ten guilty persons escape: punishment costs explain the standard of evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 395-411, June.
    4. Lingling Li & Haoran Gao & Bingjie Song & Caixian Cui, 2024. "How to Use Evidence Rules Reasonably to Resolve Land Disputes: Analysis of Typical Land Dispute Cases from China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-34, August.
    5. Edward K. Cheng, 2014. "Comment on Dawid, Faigman, and Fienberg (2014)," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 43(3), pages 396-400, August.
    6. Matteo Rizzolli & Margherita Saraceno, 2009. "Better that X guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," Working Papers 168, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Jul 2009.
    7. Jonathan J. Koehler, 2011. "If the Shoe Fits They Might Acquit: The Value of Forensic Science Testimony," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(s1), pages 21-48, December.

    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:ucp:jlstud:v:36:y:2007:p:107-140. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS .

    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.