Abstract
A paper previously published in Law and Human Behavior by D. Davis and W. C. Follette (2002) argued that certain “profiling” characteristics commonly admitted into court have little or no probative value. They argued that this is especially likely to be true when the characteristic used as evidence (e.g., having an extramarital affair) is rather common in the population whereas the act in question (e.g., a man murdering his wife) is rare. Their analysis has prompted a strong response by Friedman and Park and by Kaye and Koehler with a rejoinder by Davis and Follette (all three follow this paper in this issue of Law and Human Behavior). This paper describes some of the nature of this controversy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Davis, D., & Follette, W. C. (2002). Rethinking the probative value of evidence: Base rates, intuitive profiling, and the "postdiction" of behavior. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 133–158.
Friedman, R. D., & ParkR. C. (2003). Sometimes what everybody thinks they know is true. Law and Human Behavior, 27(6), 629–644.
Kaye, D. H., & KoehlerJ. J. (2003). The misquantification of probative value. Law and Human Behavior, 27(6), 645–651.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Wells, G.L. Murder, Extramarital Affairs, and the Issue of Probative Value. Law Hum Behav 27, 623–627 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000004890.92389.51
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000004890.92389.51