Abstract
Like scientists, investigators and decision-makers in criminal cases both explain known evidence and use the resulting explanations to make novel predictions. Philosophers of science have made much of this distinction, arguing that hypotheses which lead to successful predictions are—all else being equal—epistemically superior to those that merely explain known data. Their ideas also offer important lessons for criminal evidence scholarship. This article distinguishes three values of prediction over explaining known facts in criminal cases. First, witnesses who predict are—all else being equal—more reliable than those who do not because they are less likely to be biased or lying. Second, investigators who only explain known facts run the risk of ‘fudging’ the scenarios that they formulate. Predictions can protect us against this danger. Third, carefully constructed predictions may help investigators to avoid confirmation bias. This article ends with a case study of the murder of Hae Min Lee.
Highlights
Like scientists, investigators and decision-makers in criminal cases both explain known evidence and use the resulting explanations to make new predictions
Imagine that this detective comes to suspect him for some other reason and only later finds out that this person was near the crime scene. In both cases the detective ends up formulating the scenario that this person was the perpetrator. In both cases she has at least one piece of evidence supporting this scenario—namely that this person was near the crime scene
Predictions are a vital element of science
Summary
Investigators and decision-makers in criminal cases both explain known evidence and use the resulting explanations to make new predictions. Imagine that a detective suspects someone of being the perpetrator of a criminal act because he was near the scene of the crime Imagine that this detective comes to suspect him for some other reason and only later finds out that this person was near the crime scene. In both cases the detective ends up formulating the scenario that this person was the perpetrator. In both cases she has at least one piece of evidence supporting this scenario—namely that this person was near the crime scene. The evidence was predicted—the detective did not use it in constructing the scenario
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
