English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The use of statistics and probabilities as legal evidence has recently come under increased scrutiny. Judges' and jurors' ability to understand and use this type of evidence has been of special concern. Finkelstein and Fairley (1970) proposed introducing Bayes' theorem into the courtroom to aid the fact-finder evaluate this type of evidence. The present study addressed individuals' ability to use statistical information as well as their ability to understand and use an expert's Bayesian explanation of that evidence. One hundred and eighty continuing education students were presented with a transcript purportedly taken from an actual trial and were asked to make several subjective probabiliy judgments regarding blood-grouping evidence. The results extend to the trial process previous psychological research suggesting that individuals generally underutilize statistical information, as compared to a Bayesian model. In addition, subjects in this study generally ignored the expert's Bayesian explanation of the statistical evidence.

Bayes' theorem in the trial process: Instructing jurors on the value of statistical evidence.