Trial by Mathematics

This essay critiques Lawrence Tribe's article: "Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process." On the whole, Tribe does not make a convincing case for the wholesale exclusion of statistically based evidence based on probability theory from civil and criminal trials. Many of his arguments are based on implicit or explicit premises and a priori notions which he does not adequately support logically or with empirical data. Others are tortuously or turgidly reasoned and some suffer from their metaphysical nature. He makes a more effective case for not allowing mathematical theory to govern the legal process. He also makes a number of valid points, especially when they are supported and developed (as they are) by other sources, concerning the pitfalls involved in using such evidence and the need to adopt procedural safeguards against the misuse of statistically-based probability data as evidence.

The basic issues in controversy, which are addressed in Tribe's article and elsewhere, are whether and under what conditions and subject to what procedural safeguards expert testimony or other types of evidence based on the use of statistical or mathematical tools and, in particular probability theory, should be admissible as part of the factfinding process in civil and criminal trials in the United States. Tribe's article and, therefore this essay, deal

. . .
ate vanishingly small probabilities." Kingston and Kirk acknowledge that the "general and uncritical use of the multiplication rule has caused more criticism about the application of statistics in criminal investigation than any other factor." Finklestein and Fairley propose that the above rule be replaced by a more sophisticated version, Bayes' Theorem, for which Tribe reserves some of his heaviest barrages. It seeks to explain the probability of an event occurring based on the presence of multiple variables in the general population. In the example, it wishes to determine the probability P(G/H) where G is the event that the defendant used the knife and H the event that his palm print is found at the scene of the crime, P(G/H) equals P(G and H) divided by P(G). Finklestein and Fairley say this means "in words, the probability of the joint occurrence of two events equals the probability of the first event times the probability of the second." Through a series of examples, Tribe succeeds in showing that in application the use of Bayes' Theorem is quite complicated. He questions some of the assumptions underlying it, but his principal criticism is that it assumes that the multiple variables are independent of each other. Fink
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Finklestein Fairley, Saks Kidd, Bayes' Theorem, Tribe Nesson, Tribe Consider, Developments Tribe, People Collins, Process Tribe, Tribe's Swiss, Evidence Daubert, finklestein fairley, saks kidd, palm print, statistical evidence, tribe's article, bayes' theorem, search truth, legal process, probability theory, statistical-probability evidence, anglo-saxon system justice, civil criminal trials, statistical-probability evidence admitted, tribe nesson tend, evidence admitted trial,
Approximate Word count = 4211
Approximate Pages = 17 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Trial by Mathematics