Profiling vs. Case-specific Evidence: A Probabilistic Analysis
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2026
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866915824237805568 |
|---|---|
| author | Di Bello, Marcello Cangiotti, Nicolò Loi, Michele |
| author_facet | Di Bello, Marcello Cangiotti, Nicolò Loi, Michele |
| contents | The use of profiling evidence in criminal trials is a longstanding controversy in legal epistemology and evidence law theory. Many scholars, even when they oppose its use at trial, still assume that profiling evidence can be probative of guilt. We reject that assumption. Profiling evidence may support a generic hypothesis, but is not evidence that the defendant is guilty of the specific crime of which they are accused. We contrast profiling evidence with case-specific evidence, which speaks more directly to the facts of the case. Our critique departs from others by grounding the argument in a probabilistic analysis of evidentiary value. We also explore the implications of our account for debates about stereotyping. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2603_00098 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Profiling vs. Case-specific Evidence: A Probabilistic Analysis Di Bello, Marcello Cangiotti, Nicolò Loi, Michele Other Statistics Computers and Society Machine Learning General Economics Economics Probability The use of profiling evidence in criminal trials is a longstanding controversy in legal epistemology and evidence law theory. Many scholars, even when they oppose its use at trial, still assume that profiling evidence can be probative of guilt. We reject that assumption. Profiling evidence may support a generic hypothesis, but is not evidence that the defendant is guilty of the specific crime of which they are accused. We contrast profiling evidence with case-specific evidence, which speaks more directly to the facts of the case. Our critique departs from others by grounding the argument in a probabilistic analysis of evidentiary value. We also explore the implications of our account for debates about stereotyping. |
| title | Profiling vs. Case-specific Evidence: A Probabilistic Analysis |
| topic | Other Statistics Computers and Society Machine Learning General Economics Economics Probability |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00098 |