Probability And Inference In Judicial Proof

Which interpretation of probability should be used in judicial proof?What role should probability theory play in judicial proof? The answers to these questions all depend on the demand and expectation of judicial proof for probability.It is mainly manifested in two aspects: one is the evaluation of the weight of evidence,and the other is the probabilistic inference.The evaluation of the weight of evidence,refers to the evaluation of the strength through the characteristic frequency of evidence,including the evaluation of trace characteristics,statistical data and likelihood rate.Probabilistic inference refers to the process of constructing factual argumentation,which based on the constructive interpretation of probability,followed the axioms of probability theory,applied inductive and deductive methods to obtain the probability value of the target fact,and reflected the possibility of the fact through the size of the probability value.There are two prerequisites for the feasibility of the application of probabilistic interpretation and probability theory in judicial proof: first,the axioms of probability theory are applied,including the axioms of Pascal’s probability and the rules of Non-Pascal’s probability.Second,the information in the litigation is fully utilized,which provides the data for the evaluation of the weight of evidence and probabilistic inference.Two research routes of “probability and inference” in judicial proof:evidence evaluation in forensic science and probabilistic model in factual inference.The former includes probabilistic recognition,statistical support and likelihood expression,the latter includes Bayesian Model,Fuzzy Logic,Belief Systems,and Controlled Experimental Model.Chapter One: The fusion of judicial proof and probability: a brief historical investigation.Chapter Two: The secret of identity identification: creating ‘Shadow Probability’.Chapter Three: The persuasiveness of statistics: looking for‘significance’.Chapter Four: A model for measuring the weight of evidence:assessing ‘likelihood’.Chapter Five: Bayesian inference of combinations of evidences:transforming ‘conditional probability’.Chapter Six: Fuzzy Logic of verbal evidence: manipulating‘Probability Sets’.Chapter Seven: Belief construction of factual argument: building‘Probability Trees’.Chapter Eight: Objective induction of the resistance to falsification:sorting ‘Baconian Probabilities’.Chapter Nine: The tendency of probability in judicial proof: seeking practical value in legal norms of proof.There are three main conclusions: First,‘probability’ must be given diversified interpretation in judicial proof.As a concept of possibility,probability accords with people’s understanding of relativity of judicial proof.Second,the purpose of probability calculus is to show persuasive power through mathematical logic,which has the meaning of ‘evidence’ in a broad sense.Third,there are still many gaps between the diversified interpretation of probability,the systematic operation of probability theory and the ‘credibility’ held by the fact finder.In short,the practice of judicial proof,which is the fundamental point to test and determine whether certain methods can be reasonable and practical means of proof.