用概率分析证明：嫌疑人画像不能证明其犯特定罪行
Profiling vs. Case-specific Evidence: A Probabilistic Analysis
- 通过概率模型分析，区分通用画像与具体案件证据
- 画像仅支持普遍假设，无法指向具体犯罪事实
- 为反刻板印象和司法证据标准提供理论支持
在刑事审判中，使用嫌疑人画像证据长期存在争议。尽管许多学者反对其在庭审中的使用，但仍认为画像具有证明力。本文拒绝这一假设：画像证据可能支持某种普遍性假设，但并非被告犯有具体指控罪行的证据。我们对比了画像证据与案件特定证据，后者更直接关联案件事实。本研究从概率论角度分析证据价值，突破以往定性争论。同时探讨该观点对反刻板印象讨论的启示。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
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.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。