{"title":"刑事证据标准中的信息经济学","authors":"Christian Dahlman, A. Nordgaard","doi":"10.1093/lpr/mgad004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In this paper we model the criminal standard of proof as a twofold standard requiring sufficient probability of the factum probandum and sufficient informativeness. The focus of the paper is on the latter requirement, and we use decision theory to develop a model for sufficient informativeness. We demonstrate that sufficient informativeness is fundamentally a question of information economics and switch-ability. In our model, sufficient informativeness is a cost-benefit-analysis of further investigations that involves a prediction of the possibility that such investigations will produce evidence that switches the decision from conviction to acquittal. Critics of the Bayesian approach to legal evidence have claimed that ‘weight’ cannot be captured in a Bayesian model. Contrary to this claim, our model shows how sufficient informativeness can be modelled as a second order probability.","PeriodicalId":48724,"journal":{"name":"Law Probability & Risk","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Information economics in the criminal standard of proof\",\"authors\":\"Christian Dahlman, A. Nordgaard\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/lpr/mgad004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In this paper we model the criminal standard of proof as a twofold standard requiring sufficient probability of the factum probandum and sufficient informativeness. The focus of the paper is on the latter requirement, and we use decision theory to develop a model for sufficient informativeness. We demonstrate that sufficient informativeness is fundamentally a question of information economics and switch-ability. In our model, sufficient informativeness is a cost-benefit-analysis of further investigations that involves a prediction of the possibility that such investigations will produce evidence that switches the decision from conviction to acquittal. Critics of the Bayesian approach to legal evidence have claimed that ‘weight’ cannot be captured in a Bayesian model. Contrary to this claim, our model shows how sufficient informativeness can be modelled as a second order probability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48724,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law Probability & Risk\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law Probability & Risk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgad004\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law Probability & Risk","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgad004","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Information economics in the criminal standard of proof
In this paper we model the criminal standard of proof as a twofold standard requiring sufficient probability of the factum probandum and sufficient informativeness. The focus of the paper is on the latter requirement, and we use decision theory to develop a model for sufficient informativeness. We demonstrate that sufficient informativeness is fundamentally a question of information economics and switch-ability. In our model, sufficient informativeness is a cost-benefit-analysis of further investigations that involves a prediction of the possibility that such investigations will produce evidence that switches the decision from conviction to acquittal. Critics of the Bayesian approach to legal evidence have claimed that ‘weight’ cannot be captured in a Bayesian model. Contrary to this claim, our model shows how sufficient informativeness can be modelled as a second order probability.
期刊介绍:
Law, Probability & Risk is a fully refereed journal which publishes papers dealing with topics on the interface of law and probabilistic reasoning. These are interpreted broadly to include aspects relevant to the interpretation of scientific evidence, the assessment of uncertainty and the assessment of risk. The readership includes academic lawyers, mathematicians, statisticians and social scientists with interests in quantitative reasoning.
The primary objective of the journal is to cover issues in law, which have a scientific element, with an emphasis on statistical and probabilistic issues and the assessment of risk.
Examples of topics which may be covered include communications law, computers and the law, environmental law, law and medicine, regulatory law for science and technology, identification problems (such as DNA but including other materials), sampling issues (drugs, computer pornography, fraud), offender profiling, credit scoring, risk assessment, the role of statistics and probability in drafting legislation, the assessment of competing theories of evidence (possibly with a view to forming an optimal combination of them). In addition, a whole new area is emerging in the application of computers to medicine and other safety-critical areas. New legislation is required to define the responsibility of computer experts who develop software for tackling these safety-critical problems.