Advertisement

Coherence and Reliability in Judicial Reasoning

Chapter
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 107)

Abstract

Experimental studies of how juries reach their verdicts in court strongly suggest that coherence reasoning is ubiquitous in judicial reasoning. Under massive cognitive pressure to process large numbers of conflicting pieces of evidence and witness reports, jury members base their judgment on an assessment of the most coherent account of the events. From a normative perspective, the legitimacy of coherence reasoning in court hinges on the premise that such coherence is a plausible guide to justified belief. Unfortunately, this notion has been severely challenged by numerous recent studies in Bayesian formal epistemology. Bovens and Hartmann (2003) (Bayesian epistemology). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press and Olsson (2005) (Against coherence: Truth, probability and justification). Oxford: Oxford University Press have shown that there is no way to measure coherence such that coherence is truth conducive in the sense that more coherence implies a higher likelihood of truth. This is so even under seemingly very weak boundary conditions. In previous work we have shown that (certain forms of) coherence can be reliability conducive in paradigmatic scenarios where such coherence fails to be truth conducive. In other words, more coherence can still be indicative of a higher probability that the witnesses are reliable. We have also argued that the connection between (certain forms of) coherence and probability of reliability may be what justifies our common reliance on coherence reasoning. While the link between coherence and reliability was found to be not completely general, our studies so far do support the contention that this link is stronger than that between coherence and truth. In this paper, we add credence to this conclusion by proving several new formal results connecting one prominent measure of coherence, the Shogenji measure, to witness reliability. The most striking of these results is that in a case where the witnesses’ degrees of reliability are maximally dependent of each other—i.e., where either all witnesses are reliable or all witnesses are unreliable—the Shogenji measure is reliability conducive. We also relate our approach to the Evidentiary Value tradition in Scandinavian legal theory.

Keywords

Crime Scene Coherence Measure Coherence Theorist Inferential Connection Truth Conduciveness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Angere, S. 2007. The defeasible nature of coherentist justification. Synthese 157: 321–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angere, S. 2008. Coherence as a heuristic. Mind 117: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berman, G.L., and B.L. Cutler. 1996. Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and mock-juror decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 170–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berman, G.L., D.J. Narby, and B.L. Cutler. 1995. Effects of inconsistent eyewitness statements on mock-juror’s evaluations of the eyewitness, perceptions of defendant culpability and verdicts. Law and Human Behavior 19: 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BonJour, L. 1985. The structure of empirical knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bovens, L., and S. Hartmann. 2003. Bayesian epistemology. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bovens, L., and E.J. Olsson. 2000. Coherentism reliability and Bayesian networks. Mind 109(436): 685–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brewer, N., R. Potter, R.P. Fisher, N. Bond, and M.A. Luszcz. 1999. Beliefs and data on the relationship between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology 13: 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, L.J. 1977. The probable and the provable. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cross, C.B. 1999. Coherence and truth conducive justification. Analysis 59: 186–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dempster, A.P. 1967. Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multi-valued mapping. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 38: 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dempster, A.P. 1969. A generalization of Bayesian inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 30: 205–247.Google Scholar
  13. Edman, M. 1973. Adding independent pieces of evidence. In Modality, morality and other problems of sense and nonsense, ed. B. Hansson, 180–188. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
  14. Ekelöf, P.-O. 1963-1st ed./1982-5th ed. Rättegång IV. Stockholm: Norstedt.Google Scholar
  15. Ekelöf, P.O. 1983. My thoughts on evidentiary value. In Evidentiary value: Philosophical, judicial and psychological aspects of a theory, ed. P. Gärdenfors, B. Hansson, and N.E. Sahlin, 9–26. Lund: Library of Theoria.Google Scholar
  16. Ewing, A.C. 1934. Idealism: A critical survey. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  17. Fischoff, B., and S. Lichtenstein. 1978. Don’t attribute this to reverend Bayes. Psychological Bulletin 85(2): 239–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gärdenfors, P., B. Hansson, and N.E. Sahlin (eds.). 1983. Evidentiary value: Philosophical, judicial and psychological aspects of a theory. Lund: Library of Theoria.Google Scholar
  19. Glass, D.H. 2002. Coherence, explanation, and Bayesian networks. In Proceedings of the Irish conference in AI and cognitive science. Lecture notes in AI, Vol. 2646, 177–182. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Goldman, A.I. 1986. Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Good, I. 1983. Good thinking: The foundations of probability and its applications. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  22. Halldén, S. 1973. Indiciemekanismer. Tidskrift for Rettsvitenskap 86: 55–64.Google Scholar
  23. Hansson, B. 1983. Epistemology and evidence. In Evidentiary value: Philosophical, judicial and psychological aspects of a theory, ed. P. Gärdenfors, B. Hansson, and N.E. Sahlin, 75–97. Lund: Library of Theoria.Google Scholar
  24. Harris, A., and U. Hahn. 2009. Bayesian rationality in evaluating multiple testimonies: Incorporating the role of coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 35: 1366–1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Howson, C., and P. Urbach. 1989-1st ed./1996-2nd ed. Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  26. Kahneman, D., P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (eds.). 1982. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kemeny, J., and P. Oppenheim. 1952. Degrees of factual support. Philosophy of Science 19: 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klein, P., and T.A. Warfield. 1994. What price coherence? Analysis 54: 129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lagnado, D.A., and N. Harvey. 2008. The impact of discredited evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15(6): 1166–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewis, C.I. 1946. An analysis of knowledge and valuation. LaSalle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  31. Mejis, W., and I. Douven. 2007. On the alleged impossibility of coherence. Synthese 157: 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Olsson, E.J. 2001. Why coherence is not truth-conducive. Analysis 61: 236–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Olsson, E.J. 2002. What is the problem of coherence and truth? The Journal of Philosophy 99: 246–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Olsson, E.J. 2005. Against coherence: Truth, probability and justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Olsson, E.J., and S. Schubert. 2007. Reliability conducive measures of coherence. Synthese 157: 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pennington, N., and R. Hastie. 1993. The story model for juror decision making. In Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making, ed. R. Hastie, 192–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ramsey, F.P. 1931. Knowledge. In The foundations of mathematics and other logical essays, ed. R.B. Braithwaite, 258--259. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  38. Rapoport, A., and T.S. Wallsten. 1972. Individual decision behavior. Annual Review of Psychology 23: 131–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rawling, P. 1999. Reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence: The case of the Bayesian juror. Topoi 18: 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sahlin, N.-E. 1986. How to be 100% certain 99.5% of the time. Journal of Philosophy 83: 91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sahlin, N.-E. 2011. The evidentiary value model: Too short an introduction. Retrieved 5 June from http://www.nilsericsahlin.se/evm/index.html.
  42. Sahlin, N.-E., and W. Rabinowicz. 1997. The evidentiary value model. In Handbook of defeasible reasoning and uncertain management systems, ed. D.M. Gabbay and P. Smets, 247–265. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  43. Schubert, S. 2011. Coherence and reliability: The case of overlapping testimonies. Erkenntnis 74: 263–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schubert, S. 2012a. Coherence reasoning and reliability: A defense of the Shogenji measure. Synthese 187: 305--319.Google Scholar
  45. Schubert, S. 2012b. Is coherence reliability conducive? Synthese 187: 607--621.Google Scholar
  46. Schupbach, J. 2008. On the alleged impossibility of Bayesian coherentism. Philosophical Studies 141: 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shafer, G. 1976. A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Shogenji, T. 1999. Is coherence truth conducive? Analysis 59: 338–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shogenji, T. 2005. Justification by coherence from scratch. Philosophical Studies 125(3): 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Slovic, P., and S. Lichtenstein. 1971. Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of human information processing in judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 6: 649–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Philosophy of Natural and Social ScienceLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations