The Eighth International Conference on Forensic Inference and Statistics was held at The University of Washington, Seattle, USA, in July 2011, under the Chairmanship of Professor Bruce Weir. The conference was preceded by a day in which there were three short courses on Probabilistic Reasoning for Judges and Lawyers, Statistical Methods for DNA Evidence and Bayesian Networks in Forensic Science. The conference itself had a varied programme including sessions on the anthrax letter mailings, discrimination, DNA, individualization, plagiarism, trace evidence, as well as a discussion session involving four distinguished judges from the USA and Canada. Four papers developed from presentations at the conference are published here. David Kaye draws comparisons between the so-called birthday problem and source attribution and individualization in forensic science testimony. In its simplest form, the birthday problem is this: assuming that everyone is equally likely to be born on any day of the year (assuming it is not a leap year), how many people must enter a room for the probability that it contains at least one pair of individuals born on the same day of the same month is greater than 0.5? The answer is 23, an answer whichappearsmuchlowerthanintuitionsuggests.Therelationshipofthisresulttoindividualizationis the theme of the paper. Weiwen Miao and Joe Gastwirth consider an example in civil law with a study of the properties of statisticaltests appropriatefortheanalysis ofdataindisparateimpactcases. Thepaper reviews theuse of statistical tests to establish a prima facie case that an examination has a disparate impact on minorities. Two common scenarios are discussed. The first is that promotions are made in accordance with the rank-order of the exam scores or a composite of the exam scores and some other factors. The second situation occurs when once an applicant passes the exam, they are eligible for further considerationforpromotion.Theactualexamscorenolongermatters.Courtsmayneedtoconsiderthe practical significance of the observed difference in pass rates and the power of the test of detecting a legally important difference. Qing Pan and Joe Gastwirth consider another example in civil law with a study on the appropri- ateness of survival analysis for determining lost pay in discrimination cases when the number of plaintiffsexceedsthenumberofjobopenings.Theideasareillustratedwithanapplicationofthe'Lost Chance' doctrine to Alexander v. Milwaukee, 474 F.3d. 437 (7th Cir. 2007). In equal employment cases concerning fair hiring or promotion, the number of eligible applicants often exceeds the number of available positions. When a group of plaintiffs show that they were discriminated against in the selection process, one cannot determine with certainty which ones would have been chosen. Several decisions from the Seventh Circuit observed that this situation is similar to the loss of a chance in tort law where due to negligence the survival probability of a patient has been diminished. In both settings
Read full abstract