ABSTRACT
Chapter 8 explores the use of comparative decision theory in legal decision-making. It begins by briefly characterizing the new evidence scholarship. It then critiques this scholarship, raising difficulties for each of its three main strands: legal probabilism, Bayesian decision theory, and relative plausibility theory. The remainder of the chapter attempts to synthesize the positive features of each of these strands. Although the chapter emphasizes relative plausibility theory, it also advocates two additions to this theory. Potential objections to these additions are then addressed. Finally, the chapter sums up the claim that relative plausibility theory and certain features of legal probabilism and Bayesian decision theory are mutually consistent.
