Bare statistical evidence and the legitimacy of software-based judicial decisions

Author:

Schmidt EvaORCID,Sesing-Wagenpfeil Andreas,Köhl Maximilian A.

Abstract

AbstractCan the evidence provided by software systems meet the standard of proof for civil or criminal cases, and is it individualized evidence? Or, to the contrary, do software systems exclusively provide bare statistical evidence? In this paper, we argue that there are cases in which evidence in the form of probabilities computed by software systems is not bare statistical evidence, and is thus able to meet the standard of proof. First, based on the case of State v. Loomis, we investigate recidivism predictions provided by software systems used in the courtroom. Here, we raise problems for software systems that provide predictions that are based on bare statistical evidence. Second, by examining the case of People v. Chubbs, we argue that the statistical evidence provided by software systems in cold hit DNA cases may in some cases suffice for individualized evidence, on a view on which individualized evidence is evidence that normically supports the relevant proposition (Smith, in Mind 127:1193–1218, 2018).

Funder

Technische Universität Dortmund

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

General Social Sciences,Philosophy

Reference50 articles.

1. Bambauer, J. (2015). Hassle. Michigan Law Review, 113(4), 461–511.

2. Barocas, S. (2014). Data mining and the discourse on discrimination. Proceedings of the data ethics workshop, conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD).

3. Baum K, Mantel, S., Schmidt, E., & Speith, T. (2022). From responsibility to reason-giving explainable artificial intelligence. Philosophy and Technology 35, Topical Collection on AI and Responsibility, In N. Conradie, H. Kempt, and P. Königs (eds) pp. 1–30.

4. Bolinger, R. J. (2021). Explaining the justificatory asymmetry between statistical and individualized evidence. In Z. Hoskins & J. Robson (Eds.), The social epistemology of legal trials (pp. 60–76). Routledge.

5. Blome-Tillmann, M. (2017). ‘More Likely Than Not’—knowledge first and the role of bare statistical evidence in courts of law. In A. Carter, E. Gordon, & B. Jarvi (Eds.), Knowledge first—approaches in epistemology and mind (pp. 278–292). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Reliability in Machine Learning;Philosophy Compass;2024-04-27

2. Data‐driven decisions about individual patients: The case of medical AI;Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice;2023-07-25

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3