Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Law and Philosophy in China and Elsewhere Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2021 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Epistemological Limitations on Probabilistic Evidence Theory

verfasst von : Hanbing Gong

Erschienen in: Facts and Evidence

Verlag: Springer Singapore

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

“The great systematizers of the common law” has gone. From then on, the field of evidence scholarship in common law was “moribund”. However, this situation changed when some new talents and their heuristic research minds were attracted to this field. At the end of 1960s, John Kaplan explored a ground-breaking aspect about statistical decision theory and the fact-finding process, which stimulated a possibility of heuristic use of mathematical models of inference. In the same year, a judgment which has far reaching influence was made, that is People v. Collins.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel How to Transform Evidence into Fact? Analysis on the Evidence of Yinjie Cui Case
Nächstes Kapitel Three Dimensions of Confessions in Law
Fußnoten
1
Lempert (1986: 439, 439–477).
 
2
John Kaplan (1968: 1065).
 
3
People v. Collins, 68 Cal. 2d 319, 438 P. 2d 33, 66 Cal. Rptr. 497 (1968).
 
4
Finkelstein and Fairley (1970: 489), Tribe (1971: 1329).
 
5
Tribe (1971: 1329).
 
6
Finkelstein and Fairley (1970: 489).
 
7
Allen and Pardo (2007a: 107–140).
 
8
Finkelstein and Fairley (1970: 489).
 
9
Former President of Nanchang University.
 
10
Kolmogorov (1956: 1–10).
 
11
Shizhen (2015: 5).
 
12
Pardo (2013: 547–613).
 
13
See, for example, Kaplan (1968), Finkelstein and Fairley (1970), Lempert (1977).
 
14
Jonakait (1983: 369–421).
 
15
Tillers (2011: 167–173).
 
16
Stoljar (1981: 457–461).
 
17
Tversky and Kahneman (1982: 156–160).
 
18
Mccormick on Evidence (Strong ed., 5th ed. 1999): 277.
 
19
Achinstein (2001: 95–112).
 
20
Callen (1982).
 
21
Allen and Pardo (2007a: 107–140).
 
22
Pardo and Allen (2008: 223–268).
 
23
Tillers (2011: 167–173).
 
24
Thayer (1898: 264–268).
 
25
Kaplow (2012: 741–752).
 
26
Twining (2006: 60).
 
27
FED. R. EVID. 401 Advisory Committee Notes.
 
28
Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.
 
29
Pardo (2013: 547–613).
 
30
FED. R. EVID. 401 Advisory Committee Notes.
 
31
Cohen (1994: 172–182).
 
32
FED. R. EVID. 401 Advisory Committee Notes.
 
33
Lempert (1977: 1021–1025).
 
34
FED. R. EVID. 401 Advisory Committee Notes.
 
35
Lempert (1977: 1021–1025). The two element formulas of probability from bayes’ Theorem (1) P(A&B) = P(A/B) · P(B); (2) P(A) = P(A&B) + P(A&not-B); Expressing these in terms changed from A's and B's to G's (guilt) and E's (new evidence), then it can be shown that (3) P(G|E) = P(E|G) · P(G) P(E|G) · P(G) + P(E|not-G) · P(not-G) If O(G) represents the “odds of G”, defined as P(G)/P(not-G), then it can be rewritten as (4) O(G|E) = P(E/G)/P(E|not-G) · O(G).
 
36
Lempert (1977: 1021–1025).
 
37
Lempert (1977: 1021–1025).
 
38
FED. R. EVID. 401 Advisory Committee Notes.
 
39
FED. R. EVID. 401 Advisory Committee Notes.
 
40
United States v. McVeigh, 1531 F. 3d 1166, 1201 (10th Cir. 1998).
 
41
Allen and Kuhns (2011: 131–135).
 
42
Allen and Kuhns (2011: 131–135).
 
43
See Pardo (2010: 136–139).
 
45
Pardo (2013: 547–613).
 
46
Zhang et al. (2013: 16).
 
47
Schum and Tillers (1991: 657).
 
48
Twining (2006: 76).
 
49
Fuller (2000: 353).
 
50
See Allen and Jehl (2003: 893, 897–904), Levmore (2001: 723, 724–733).
 
51
Pennington and Hastie (1991: 519).
 
52
Nicolson (1994: 738).
 
53
Twining (2006: 78–80).
 
54
Allen and Pardo (2007b: 307).
 
55
Goldman (1999: 24–26).
 
56
Twining (2006: 76–78).
 
57
Goldman (2000: 317–333).
 
58
Berends (2002: 177–179).
 
59
See FED. R. EVID. 404 advisory Committee Notes.
 
60
FED. R. EVID. 404 Advisory Committee Notes.
 
61
Allen (1992: 800).
 
62
Criminal Procedure Law of China: Article 54.
 
63
Criminal Procedure Law of China: Article 54.
 
64
Fienberg (1989: 50–55).
 
65
Berends (2002: 177–179).
 
66
Goldman (1999: 145).
 
67
Allen and Leiter (2001: 1504).
 
68
Allen and Leiter (2001: 1504).
 
69
Twining (2006: 78–80).
 
70
Nicolson (1994: 726–744).
 
71
Crook (1991: 67–88).
 
72
Liption (2004: 55–70).
 
73
Liption (2004: 56).
 
74
Liption (2004: 55–70).
 
75
Park (1991: 849, 859–871).
 
76
See Pardo and Allen (2008: 224–225), Pardo (2013: 547–613).
 
77
Pardo (2013: 547–613).
 
Literatur
Achinstein, Peter. 2001. The Book of Evidence, 95–112.
Allen, Ronald J. 1992. The Evolution of the Hearsay Rule of Admission. Law Review 76: 797–800.
Allen, Ronald J., and Brian Leiter. 2001. Naturalized Epistemology and the Law of Evidence. Virginia Law Review 87: 1504.
Allen, Ronald, and Michael Pardo. 2007a. The Problematic Value of Mathematical Models of Evidence. Journal of Legal Studies (January 2007) 36: 107–140.
Allen, Ronald J., and Michael S. Pardo. 2007b. Probability, Explanation, and Inference: A Reply. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 11: 307.
Allen, Ronald J., and Richard B. Kuhns. 2011. Evidence Text, Problems, and Cases, 5th ed., 131–135. Aspen Law & Business.
Allen, Ronald J., and Sarah A. Jehl. 2003. Burdens of Persuasion in Civil Cases: Algorithms v. Explanations. Michigan State Law Review 893: 897–904.
Berends, Hans. 2002. Veritistic Value and the Use of Evidence: A Shortcoming of Goldman’s Epistemic Evaluation of Social Practices. Social Epistemology 16 (2): 177–179.
Callen, Craig R. 1982. Notes on a Grand Illusion: Some Limits on the Use of the Bayesian Theory in Evidence Law. Indiana Law Journal 57 (1).
Cohen, Jonathan. 1994. Some Steps Towards a General Theory of Relevance. Synthese 101: 172–182.
Crook, S. 1991. Modernist Radicalism and Its Aftermath: Foundationalism and Anti-Foundationalism in Radical Social Theory, 67–88. London: Routledge.
Fienberg, Stephen E. 1989. The Evolving Role of Statistical Assessments as Evidence in the Courts, 50–55. Springer, Softcover reprint of the original.
Finkelstein, Michael O., and William B. Fairley. 1970. A Bayesian Approach to Identification Evidence. Harvard Law Review 83: 489.
Fuller, Lon L. 2000. The Forms and Limits of Adjudication. Harvard Law Review 92: 353.
Goldman, Alvin I. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World, 24–26, 145. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Goldman, Alvin I. 2000. Replies to Reviews of Knowledge in a Social World. Social Epistemology 14: 317–333.
Jonakait, Randolph N. 1983. When Blood Is Their Argument: Probabilities in Criminal Case, Genetic Makers, and Once Again, Bayes’ Theorem. University of Illinois Law Review: 369–421.
Kaplan, John. 1968. Decision Theory and the Factfinding Process. Stanford Law Review 20: 1065.
Kaplow, Louis. 2012. Burden of Proof. Yale Law Journal 121: 741–752.
Kolmogorov, Andrei. 1956. Foundations of the Theory of Probability, 1–10. New York: Chelsea Publishing Company.
Lempert, Richard O. 1977. Modeling Relevance. Michigan Law Review 75: 1021–1025.
Lempert, Richard. 1986. The New Evidence Scholarship: Analyzing the Process of Proof. University Law Review 66: 439, 439–477.
Levmore, Saul. 2001. Conjunction and aggregation. Michigan Law Review 99: 723, 724–733.
Liption, Peter. 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation, 2nd ed., 55–70. Routledge.
Nicolson, Donald. 1994. Truth, Reason and Justice: Epistemology and Politics in Evidence Discourse. The Modern Law Review 57 (5): 726–744.CrossRef
Pardo, Michael S. 2010. The Gettier Problem and Legal Proof. Legal Theory 16(37): 136–139.
Pardo, Michael S. 2013. The Nature and Purpose of Evidence Theory. Vanderbilt Law Review 66: 547–613, 585.
Pardo, Michael S., and Ronald J. Allen. 2008. Juridical Proof and the Best Explanation. Law and Philosophy 27 (3): 223, 224–225.
Park, Roger C. 1991. Evidence Scholarship, Old and New. Law Review 75849: 859–871.
Pennington, Nancy, and Reid Hastie. 1991. A Cognitive Theory of Juror Decision Making: The Story Model. Cardozo Law Review 13: 519.
Schum, David, and Peter Tillers. 1991. Marshalling Evidence for Adversary Litigation. Cardozo Law Review 13: 657.
Shizhen, H.U. 2015. Wenbin ZHOU While Representing His Own Case in Two Days Trial Develops a Evaluation Form to Assess the Testimony’s Authentication. Oriental Morning Post, March 2, 2015, 5.
Stoljar, Samuel. 1981. Review of The Probable and The Provable 90, No. 3, The Philosophical Review, July, 1981, 457–461.
Thayer, James Bradley. 1898. A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law, 264–268. Boston, Little, Brown & Co.
Tillers, Peter. 2011. Trial by Mathematics-Reconsidered. Law, Probability and Risk 10: 167–173.
Tribe, Laurence. 1971. Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process. Harvard Law Review 84: 1329.
Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1982. Evidential Impact of Base Rates, in Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, 156–60, ed. Daniel Kahneman et al.
Twining, William. 2006. Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd ed., 60, 76, 78–80. Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, Baosheng, et al. 2013. Evidence Law, 16. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Metadaten
Titel
Epistemological Limitations on Probabilistic Evidence Theory
verfasst von
Hanbing Gong
Copyright-Jahr
2021
Verlag
Springer Singapore
Buch
Facts and Evidence

Print ISBN: 978-981-15-9638-4

Electronic ISBN: 978-981-15-9639-1

Copyright-Jahr: 2021

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9639-1_14

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise