Science and Technology Law Commons^™

What Is Bayesianism? A Guide For The Perplexed, David H. Kaye

Faculty Scholarship

Bayes' Theorem, Bayesian statistics and Bayesian inference have been the subject of sharp dispute in various writings about legal rules of evidence and proof. This article disentangles the many meanings of "Bayesianism." It sketches several competing interpretations of probability, some leading schools of statistical inference, and the elements of Bayesian decision theory. In the process, it notes the aspects of Bayesian theory that have been applied in studies of forensic proof.

The Researcher As "Offender" And "Victim" - Comparative Observations As To Freedom And Responsibility Of Science And Technology, Albin Eser

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rifkin, A Documentary History, 2 Computer L.J. 471 (1980), Jay Becker

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

No abstract provided.

Due Process Versus Data Processing: An Analysis Of Computerized Criminal History Information Systems, Donald L. Doernberg

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Based on their empirical study of New York's computerized criminal history information system and on their national surveys of similar systems, Professors Doernberg and Zeigler conclude that current regulations governing the dispersion of criminal history information are grossly inadequate. Although information drawn from computerized criminal history files is often inaccurate, incomplete, or inappropriate, that information is routinely used by criminal justice officials and judges to make decisions affecting defendants'liberty. The authors argue that this practice is unconstitutional and suggest ways to regulate criminal history information suystems that would protect a defendant's right not to be deprived of liberty without due …

"Uncontrollable" Actions And The Eighth Amendment: Implications Of Powell V. Texas, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

No questions of criminal justice are more fundamental than the bases for imposing criminal punishment, yet the Federal Constitution says nothing explicit about them. It is, therefore, understandable that the increasing limitations imposed by constitutional interpretation upon procedures for ascertaining criminal guilt have not been accompanied by similar limits upon principles of criminal responsibility. That the difference in treatment is understandable does not, of course, necessarily mean it has been justified.

When the Court struck down a law punishing addiction in Robinson v. California in 1962, it was still unclear whether it was willing to become significantly implicated in developing …

Admissibility Of Fingerprint Evidence And Constitutional Objections To Fingerprinting Raised In Criminal And Civil Cases, Andre A. Moenssens

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence - Validity Of Statutory Presumption Of Intoxication From A Finding Of 0.15 Percent Concentration Of Alcohol In The Blood, Donald F. Oosterhouse S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Defendant was tried and convicted of the statutory crime of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The state introduced into evidence the result of a blood test, voluntarily submitted to by the defendant, which showed 0,20% concentration of alcohol in the defendant's blood. Arizona statutes established a rebuttable presumption of no intoxication if such tests showed a concentration of 0.05%, or less, of alcohol in one's blood, and of intoxication if the tests showed a concentration of 0.15%, or more. Breath, urine, and direct blood tests are authorized by the statute. Defendant argued that the statute …