Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 14724962

The misquantification of probative value.

D H Kaye·Jonathan J Koehler
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

D. Davis and W. C. Follette (2002) purport to show that when "the base rate" for a crime is low, the probative value of "characteristics known to be strongly associated with the crime ... will be virtually nil." Their analysis rests on the choice of an arbitrary and inopposite measure of the probative value of evidence. When a more suitable metric is used (e.g., a likelihood ratio), it becomes clear that evidence they would dismiss as devoid of probative value is relevant and diagnostic.

Explore related subjects

Criminal LawDNA FingerprintingDecision MakingExtramarital RelationsFemaleHomicideHumansMaleProbabilitySpousesStereotypingUnited StatesJournal ArticleLegal CaseComment

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D H Kaye, Jonathan J Koehler. 2003. The misquantification of probative value.. https://doi.org/10.1023/b%3Alahu.0000004892.94380.88

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: comprehension and coverage.

Miranda warnings enshrine the constitutional rights of custodial suspects against self-incrimination. However, the wording and sentence complexity of Miranda warnings and waivers vary dramatically from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This study is the first extensive investigation of Miranda warning variations examining 560 Miranda warnings from across the United States. With Flesch-Kincaid reading comprehension as a useful metric, Miranda warnings varied from very simple comprehension (i.e., grade 2.8) to requiring postgraduate education. Miranda warnings are composed of five components (e.g., silence and evidence against you); marked variations were also observed in the comprehensibility of individual components. On average, the Miranda warning component on "continuing rights" requires a reading comprehension level six grades higher than the comparatively simple expression of the right to silence. Similar analyses were conducted on Miranda waivers. The content of these warnings differed on such issues as communicating (a) when access to an attorney would be granted (e.g., 45.9% specified only "during questioning") and (b) explicitly that indigent legal services were free (e.g., 31.8% directly informed suspects). Finally, the study identified representative Miranda components at different levels of reading comprehension as a template for further research.

Criminal Law↗