Profiling vs. Case-specific Evidence: A Probabilistic Analysis

Marcello Di Bello, Nicol\`o Cangiotti and Michele Loi

Papers from arXiv.org

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.

Date: 2026-02
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-law
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.00098 Latest version (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:arx:papers:2603.00098

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Papers from arXiv.org
Bibliographic data for series maintained by arXiv administrators ().