Abstract
ABSTRACTA vast literature has developed probing the law's aversion to statistical/probability evidence in general and its rejection of naked statistical evidence in particular. This literature rests on false premises. At least so far as US law is concerned, there is no general aversion to statistical forms of proof and even naked statistics are admissible and sufficient for a verdict when the evidentiary proffer meets the normal standards of admissibility, the most important of which is reliability. The belief to the contrary rests upon a series of mistakes: most importantly, mismodeling of the structure of legal systems and the nature of common law decision making. Contributing to these mistakes is the common methodology in this literature of relying on weird hypotheticals that mismodel the underlying legal relations and contain impossible epistemological demands. Collectively, these phenomena have distracted attention from issues that actually affect real legal systems.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference18 articles.
1. The Nature of Juridical Proof: Probability as a Tool in Plausible Reasoning;Allen;Int'l J. Evidence and Proof,2017
2. Burdens of proof
3. The Incompatibility of Due Process and Naked Statistical Evidence;Nunn;Vand. L. Rev.,2015
4. Naturalized Epistemology and the Law of Evidence
5. Sensitivity, Causality, and Statistical Evidence in Courts of Law;Blome-Tillmann;Thought,2015
Cited by
4 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