Profiling vs. Case-specific Evidence: A Probabilistic Analysis

TL;DR

This paper critically examines the evidentiary value of profiling in criminal trials, arguing through probabilistic analysis that it supports general hypotheses but does not directly prove guilt, contrasting it with case-specific evidence.

Contribution

It provides a novel probabilistic framework to distinguish between profiling and case-specific evidence, challenging assumptions about profiling's probative value.

Findings

Profiling evidence supports general hypotheses but not specific guilt.

Case-specific evidence more directly relates to the facts of the case.

Probabilistic analysis clarifies the limitations of profiling in legal contexts.

Abstract

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.