Priors neutral between the parties: the Batson motion in Idaho v. Ish
引用次数: 0
Abstract
For Bayesian inference to be useful to a court, it is essential that the priors used should be neutral between the parties. ‘Neutrality’ reflects the idea that the fact-finder would want the statistical analyses to be fair to both parties. It is neither the same as the legal designation of which party has the burden of proof with respect to a particular matter, nor the standard of proof that must be met for that party to prevail. The recent case of Idaho v. Ish raises the question of how to find such priors, particularly in a doubly constrained 2 × 2 table with a zero. This article re-examines this issue. It also offers reflection on whether, given a zero in the table (which here means that all members of a particular race or sex are excluded from jury service), it matters how many are excluded. 当事人之间的先前中立:爱达荷州诉伊什州的巴特森动议
摘要为了使贝叶斯推理对法院有用，所使用的先验在当事人之间应该是中立的。“中立性”反映了事实发现者希望统计分析对双方都是公平的。它既不等同于法律上指定哪一方对某一特定事项负有举证责任，也不等同于该方必须满足的证明标准。最近的爱达荷诉伊什案提出了一个问题，即如何找到这样的先验，特别是在一个具有零的双重约束的2x2表中。本文将重新研究这个问题。它还提供了一个思考，在表中给出一个零(这里意味着某个特定种族或性别的所有成员都被排除在陪审团服务之外)，有多少人被排除在外是否重要。
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
求助全文
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
