ABSTRACT

In a recent book,1 I put forward several arguments why the concept of probability that is implicit in the civil and criminal standards of forensic proof should not be regarded as a Pascalian one, i.e., as conforming to the axioms of the mathematical calculus of chance. One of these arguments related to an imaginary rodeo where it is known that only 499 have paid for entry, but 1000 people are on the seats. The management picks one person at random off the seats and sues for non-payment. A Pascalian analysis would indicate that, if those are the only facts before the court,2 the balance of probability lies in favor of the plaintiff. Yet our intuitions of justice revolt against the idea that the plaintiff should be awarded judgment on such grounds.