Reframing the Debate: A Question of Probability, Not of Likelihood Ratio

A. Biedermann, S. Bozza, F. Taroni, C. Aitken
{"title":"Reframing the Debate: A Question of Probability, Not of Likelihood Ratio","authors":"A. Biedermann, S. Bozza, F. Taroni, C. Aitken","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2846500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Evidential value is measured by a likelihood ratio. This ratio has two components, the probability, or probability density, of the evidence if the prosecution proposition is true and the probability (density) of the evidence if the defence proposition is true. It takes the form of a single value, even if these probabilities are subjective measures of belief of the reporting forensic scientist.","PeriodicalId":190252,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Evidence (Public Law - Courts) (Topic)","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"41","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Evidence (Public Law - Courts) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2846500","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 41

Abstract

Evidential value is measured by a likelihood ratio. This ratio has two components, the probability, or probability density, of the evidence if the prosecution proposition is true and the probability (density) of the evidence if the defence proposition is true. It takes the form of a single value, even if these probabilities are subjective measures of belief of the reporting forensic scientist.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重构辩论:一个概率问题,而不是概率比问题
证据值用似然比来衡量。该比率有两个组成部分,即如果控方主张为真,证据的概率或概率密度,以及如果辩方主张为真,证据的概率(密度)。它采用单一值的形式,即使这些概率是报告法医科学家的主观信念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Centralized versus Decentralized Institutions for Expert Testimony Reframing the Debate: A Question of Probability, Not of Likelihood Ratio Breaking iPhones Under CALEA and the All Writs Act: Why the Government Was (Mostly) Right Economic Evidence in Regulatory Disputes: Revisiting the Court-Regulatory Agency Relationship in the US and the UK An Economic Rationale for Dismissing Low-Quality Experts in Trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1