Bare statistical evidence and the legitimacy of software-based judicial decisions.
Can the evidence provided by software systems meet the standard of proof for civil or criminal cases, and is it individualized evidence? Or, to the contrary, do software systems exclusively provide bare statistical evidence? In this paper, we argue that there are cases in which evidence in the form...
| Publicado en: | Synthese Vol. 201; no. 4; pp. 1 - 28 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Apr2023
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=162906818&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 162906818 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00397857 4LI jtl: Synthese issn: 00397857 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Apr2023 vid: 201 iid: 4 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 162906818 10.1007/s11229-023-04141-2 ppf: 1 ppct: 27 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 516KB tig: atl: Bare statistical evidence and the legitimacy of software-based judicial decisions. aug: au: Schmidt, Eva Sesing-Wagenpfeil, Andreas Köhl, Maximilian A. affil: Department of Philosophy and Political Science, TU Dortmund, Emil-Figge-Straße 50, 44227, Dortmund, Germany Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany sug: keyword: Bare statistical evidence COMPAS DNA evidence Inference to the best explanation Legal epistemology Normic support Standard of proof ab: Can the evidence provided by software systems meet the standard of proof for civil or criminal cases, and is it individualized evidence? Or, to the contrary, do software systems exclusively provide bare statistical evidence? In this paper, we argue that there are cases in which evidence in the form of probabilities computed by software systems is not bare statistical evidence, and is thus able to meet the standard of proof. First, based on the case of State v. Loomis, we investigate recidivism predictions provided by software systems used in the courtroom. Here, we raise problems for software systems that provide predictions that are based on bare statistical evidence. Second, by examining the case of People v. Chubbs, we argue that the statistical evidence provided by software systems in cold hit DNA cases may in some cases suffice for individualized evidence, on a view on which individualized evidence is evidence that normically supports the relevant proposition (Smith, in Mind 127:1193–1218, 2018). pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Synthese is a copyright of Springer, 2023. All Rights Reserved. item: Synthese holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2023 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|