ABSTRACT

Legal standards of proof are often construed as quantifiable likelihoods. Beyond reasonable doubt, for example, is glossed as 90 to 95% confidence in the guilt of the defendant; preponderance of evidence is glossed as above 50% confidence. A family of influential cases suggests legal standards of proof cannot be quantified. These ‘proof paradoxes’ illustrate that purely statistical evidence can warrant high credence in a disputed fact without satisfying the relevant legal standard. In this chapter, I evaluate three influential attempts to explain why merely statistical evidence cannot satisfy legal standards.