The subjectivist interpretation of probability and the problem of individualisation in forensic science

Science and Justice

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 192-200

  Biedermann, Alex ^a   Garbolino, Paolo ^b   Taroni, Franco ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY IUAV OF VENICE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Decision theory; Individualisation; Scoring rule; Subjective probability

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; DECISION THEORY; FORENSIC SCIENCE; INDIVIDUALIZATION; LEGAL ASPECT; MALPRACTICE; PROBABILITY; SCIENTIST; SCORING SYSTEM; SUBJECTIVIST INTERPRETATION OF PROBABILITY; SYSTEM ANALYSIS;

FORENSIC SCIENCES; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; JUDGMENT; PROBABILITY;

EID: 84876709589     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: 18764452     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2013.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Cole S.A. Forensics without uniqueness, conclusions without individualization: the new epistemology of forensic identification. Law, Probability and Risk 2009, 8:233-255.
2. Stoney D.A. Transfer evidence. The Use of Statistics in Forensic Science 1991, 107-138. Ellis Horwood, New York. C.G.G. Aitken, D.A. Stoney (Eds.).
3. Champod C., Evett I.W. A probabilistic approach to fingerprint evidence. Journal of Forensic Identification 2001, 51:101-122.
4. Champod C., Lennard C., Margot P., Stoilovic M. Fingerprints and Other Ridge Skin Impressions 2004, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
5. Evett I.W., Weir B.S. Interpreting DNA Evidence 1998, Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland.
6. Balding D.J. When can a DNA profile be regarded as unique?. Science & Justice 1999, 39:257-260.
7. Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation 2005, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. J.S. Buckleton, C.M. Triggs, S.J. Walsh (Eds.).
8. Redmayne M. Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice 2001, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
9. Aitken C.G.G., Taroni F. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists 2004, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. 2nd ed.
10. Aitken C.G.G., Roberts P., Jackson G. Fundamentals of probability and statistical evidence in criminal proceedings. Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses, Royal Statistical Society's Working Group on Statistics and the Law 2010.
11. Champod C. Identification/individualisation, overview and meaning of ID. Encyclopedia of Forensic Science 2000, 1077-1084. Academic Press, San Diego. J.H. Siegel, P.J. Saukko, G.C. Knupfer (Eds.).
12. Stoney D.A. What made us ever think we could individualize using statistics?. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1991, 31:197-199.
13. Taroni F., Biedermann A. Inadequacies of posterior probabilities for the assessment of scientific evidence. Law, Probability and Risk 2005, 4:89-114.
14. Saks M.J., Koehler J.J. The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science 2005, 309:892-895.
15. Kaplan J. Decision theory and the factfinding process. Stanford Law Review 1968, 20:1065-1092.
16. Lempert R.O. Modeling relevance. Michigan Law Review 1977, 75:1021-1057.
17. Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F. Decision theoretic properties of forensic identification: underlying logic and argumentative implications. Forensic Science International 2008, 177:120-132.
18. Taroni F., Bozza S., Biedermann A., Garbolino G., Aitken C.G.G. Data Analysis in Forensic Science: A Bayesian Decision Perspective 2010, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
19. Theory of identification as it relates to toolmarks: revised. AFTE Journal 2011, 43:287. Committee for the advancement of the science of firearm & toolmark identification.
20. Jonasson L. Shoeprint test 2 report. The Information Bulletin for Shoeprint/Toolmark Examiners 2010, 16:12-15.
21. Kaye D.H. Clarifying the burden of persuasion: what Bayesian decision rules do and do not do. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 1999, 3:1-29.
22. Taroni F., Bozza S., Aitken C.G.G. Decision analysis in forensic science. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2005, 50:894-905.
23. Lindley D.V. The Bayesian approach. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 1978, 5:1-26.
24. de Finetti B. Probabilism. Erkenntnis 1989, 31:169-223.
25. Salmon W.C. The Foundations of Scientific Inference 1966, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA.
26. Gillies D. Philosophical Theories of Probability 2000, Philosophical Issues in Science, Routledge, London.
27. Laplace P.-S. Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilités (Reprinted in: Cambridge Library Collection) 2006, 1825. Bachelier [Cambridge University Press], Paris [Cambridge].
28. Lindley D.V. Probability. The Use of Statistics in Forensic Science 1991, 27-50. Ellis Horwood, New York. C.G.G. Aitken, D.A. Stoney (Eds.).
29. Taroni F., Aitken C.G.G., Garbolino P. De Finetti's subjectivism, the assessment of probabilities and the evaluation of evidence: a commentary for forensic scientists. Science & Justice 2001, 41:145-150.
30. de Finetti B. Bayesianism: its unifying role for both the foundations and the applications of statistics. Bruno de Finetti, Probabilità e induzione, Biblioteca di Statistica, Bologna 1993, 1973, 467-490. P. Monari, D. Cocchi (Eds.).
31. Dawid A.P. Probability, causality and the empirical world: a Bayes-de Finetti-Popper-Borel synthesis. Statistical Science 2004, 19:44-57.
32. Bernardo J.M., Smith A.F.M. Bayesian Theory 2000, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
33. Lindley D.V. That wretched prior. Significance 2004, 1:85-87.
34. Tillers P. Trial by mathematics - reconsidered. Law, Probability and Risk 2011, 10:167-173.
35. Jeffrey R.C. Subjective probability. The Real Thing 2004, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
36. Lindley D. Making Decisions 1985, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. 2nd ed.
37. de Finetti B. Does it make sense to speak of 'Good Probability Appraisers'?. The Scientist Speculates: An Anthology of Partly-Baked Ideas 1962, 357-364. Basic Books, New York. I.J. Good (Ed.).
38. de Finetti B. The proper approach to probability. Exchangeability in Probability and Statistics 1982, 1-6. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam. G. Koch, K. Spizzichino (Eds.).
39. Brier G.W. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly Weather Review 1950, 78:1-3.
40. Good I.J. Rational decisions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 1952, 14:107-114.
41. De Groot M.H., Fienberg S.E. The comparison and evaluation of forecasters. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician) 1983, 32:12-22.
42. de Finetti B. Probability, induction and statistics. The Art of Guessing 1972, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
43. Savage L.J. The elicitation of personal probabilities and expectations. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1971, 66:783-801.
44. Jensen F.V., Nielsen T.D. Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs 2007, Springer, New York. 2nd ed.
45. Kjærulff U.B., Madsen A.L. Bayesian networks and influence diagrams. A Guide to Construction and Analysis 2008, Springer, New York.
46. Weir B.S. Population genetics in the forensic DNA debate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 1992, 89:11654-11659.
47. Thompson W.C., Taroni F., Aitken C.G.G. How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2003, 48:47-54.
48. Evett I.W., Gill P.D., Jackson G., Whitaker J., Champod C. Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2002, 47:520-530.
49. Buckleton J.S., Evett I.W., Weir B.S. Setting bounds for the likelihood ratio when multiple hypotheses are postulated. Science & Justice 1998, 38:23-26.
50. Biedermann A., Bozza S., Konis K., Taroni F. Inference about the number of contributors to a DNA mixture: comparative analyses of a Bayesian network approach and the maximum allele count method. Forensic Science International. Genetics 2012, 6:689-696.
51. Stoney D.A. Relaxation of the assumption of relevance and an application to one-trace and two-trace problems. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1994, 34:17-21.
52. Evett I.W., Lambert J.A., Buckleton J.S. A Bayesian approach to interpreting footwear marks in forensic casework. Science & Justice 1998, 38:241-247.
53. de Finetti B. Le vrai et le probable. Pubblicazioni delle Facoltà di Scienze e di Ingegneria dell'Università di Triste 1949, 47:78-92.
54. Cowell R.G., Dawid A.P., Lauritzen S.L., Spiegelhalter D.J. Probabilistic Networks and Expert Systems 1999, Springer, New York.
55. Aitken C.G.G., Gammerman A. Probabilistic reasoning in evidential assessment. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1989, 29:303-316.
56. Dawid A.P., Evett I.W. Using a graphical method to assist the evaluation of complicated patterns of evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1997, 42:226-231.
57. Dawid A.P., Mortera J., Pascali V.L., van Boxel D. Probabilistic expert systems for forensic inference from genetic markers. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 2002, 29:577-595.
58. Garbolino P., Taroni F. Evaluation of scientific evidence using Bayesian networks. Forensic Science International 2002, 125:149-155.
59. Taroni F., Biedermann A., Garbolino P., Aitken C.G.G. A general approach to Bayesian networks for the interpretation of evidence. Forensic Science International 2004, 139:5-16.
60. Taroni F., Aitken C.G.G., Garbolino G., Biedermann A. Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science 2006, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
61. Castillo E., Gutierrez J.M., Hadi S. Expert Systems and Probabilistic Network Models 1997, Springer, New York.
62. DeGroot M.H., Fienberg S.E. The comparison and evaluation of forecasters. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician) 1982, 32:12-22.
63. Lindley D.V. Understanding Uncertainty 2006, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.