Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Probability and Inference in Forensic Science

  • Franco TaroniEmail author
  • Alex Biedermann
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_146

Overview

Various members of the justice system encounter uncertainty as an inevitable complication in inference and decision-making. Inference relates to the use of incomplete information (typically given by results of scientific examinations) in order to reason about propositions of interest (e.g., whether or not a given individual is the source of an evidential trace). In turn, judges are required to make practical decisions which represent a core aspect of their professional activity (e.g., deciding whether or not a given suspect is to be considered as the source of a given crime-related trace). Both aspects, inference and decision-making, require a logical assistance because unaided human reasoning is known to be liable to bias. From a methodological point of view, these challenges should be approached within a general framework that includes probability and (Bayesian) decision theory.

Introduction

Since the early 1960s, the forensic science community started to take a more...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Aitken CGG, Stoney DA (1991) The use of statistics in forensic science. Ellis Horwood, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Aitken CGG, Taroni F (2004) Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  3. Biedermann A, Bozza S, Taroni F (2008) Decision theoretic properties of forensic identification: underlying logic and argumentative implications. Forensic Sci Int 177:120–132Google Scholar
  4. Buckleton JS, Triggs CM, Walsh SJ (2005) Forensic DNA evidence interpretation. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  5. Darboux JG, Appell PE, Poincaré JH (1908) Examen critique des divers systèmes ou études graphologiques auxquels a donné lieu le bordereau. In: L’affaire Dreyfus – La révision du procès de Rennes – Enquête de la chambre criminelle de la Cour de Cassation. Ligue française des droits de l’homme et du citoyen, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. de Finetti B (1972) Probability, induction and statistics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. de Finetti B (1993) The role of probability in the different attitudes of scientific thinking. In: Monari P, Cocchi D (eds) Bruno de Finetti, Probabilità e induzione. Bibliotheca di STATISTICA, Bologna, pp 491–511, 1977Google Scholar
  8. Evett IW (1996) Expert evidence and forensic misconceptions of the nature of exact science. Sci Justice 36:118–122Google Scholar
  9. Fienberg SE (2003) When did Bayesian inference become “Bayesian”? Bayesian Anal 1:1–41Google Scholar
  10. Finkelstein MO, Fairley WB (1970) A Bayesian approach to identification evidence. Harv Law Rev 83:489–517Google Scholar
  11. Good IJ (1950) Probability and the weighing of evidence. Griffin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Howson C, Urbach P (1993) Scientific reasoning: the Bayesian approach, 2nd edn. Open Court, La SalleGoogle Scholar
  13. Jeffrey RC (1975) Probability and falsification: critique of the popper program. Synthese 30:95–117Google Scholar
  14. Joyce H (2005) Career story: consultant forensic statistician. Communication with Ian Evett. Significance 2(34–37):2005, March 2005Google Scholar
  15. Kaplan J (1968) Decision theory and the factfinding process. Stanf Law Rev 20:1065–1092Google Scholar
  16. Kingston CR (1965) Application of probability theory in criminalistics – II. J Am Stat Assoc 60:1028–1034Google Scholar
  17. Kingston CR, Kirk PL (1964) The use of statistics in criminalistics. J Crim Law Criminol Police Sci 55:514–521Google Scholar
  18. Koehler JJ (1993) Error and exaggeration in the presentation of DNA evidence at trial. Jurimetrics J 34:21–39Google Scholar
  19. Lempert RO (1977) Modeling relevance. Mich Law Rev 75:1021–1057Google Scholar
  20. Lindley DV (1977) Probability and the law. Statistician 26:203–220Google Scholar
  21. Lindley D (1985) Making decisions, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  22. National Research Council (2009) Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. National Academy Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  23. Poincaré H (1896) Calcul des probabilités. Leçons professées pendant le deuxième semestre 1893–1894. Gauthier-Villars, ParisGoogle Scholar
  24. Press SJ, Tanur JM (2001) The subjectivity of scientists and the Bayesian approach. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Ramsey FP (1990) Truth and probability. In: Mellor DH (ed) Philosophical papers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 52–109, 1926Google Scholar
  26. Redmayne M, Roberts P, Aitken CGG, Jackson G (2011) Forensic science evidence in question. Crim Law Rev 5:347–356Google Scholar
  27. Robertson B, Vignaux GA (1995) Interpreting evidence. Evaluating forensic science in the courtroom. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  28. Robertson B, Vignaux GA (1998) Explaining evidence logically. N Law J Expert Witn Suppl 148:159–162Google Scholar
  29. Taroni F, Champod C, Margot P (1998) Forerunners of Bayesianism in early forensic science. Jurimetrics J 38:183–200Google Scholar
  30. Taroni F, Bozza S, Aitken CGG (2005) Decision analysis in forensic science. J Forensic Sci 50:894–905Google Scholar
  31. Taroni F, Bozza S, Biedermann A, Garbolino G, Aitken CGG (2010) Data analysis in forensic science: a Bayesian decision perspective. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  32. Winkler RL (1996) An introduction to Bayesian inference and decision. Probabilistic Publishing, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Criminal Justice, Institute of Forensic ScienceUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland