Wells Gary L
Psychology Department, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA.
Law Hum Behav. 2003 Dec;27(6):623-7. doi: 10.1023/b:lahu.0000004890.92389.51.
A paper previously published in Law and Human Behavior by D. Davis and W. C. Follette (2002) argued that certain "profiling" characteristics commonly admitted into court have little or no probative value. They argued that this is especially likely to be true when the characteristic used as evidence (e.g., having an extramarital affair) is rather common in the population whereas the act in question (e.g., a man murdering his wife) is rare. Their analysis has prompted a strong response by Friedman and Park and by Kaye and Koehler with a rejoinder by Davis and Follette (all three follow this paper in this issue of Law and Human Behavior). This paper describes some of the nature of this controversy.
D. 戴维斯和W. C. 福利特(2002年)此前发表在《法律与人类行为》上的一篇论文认为,某些通常被法庭采信的“侧写”特征几乎没有或完全没有证明价值。他们认为,当用作证据的特征(例如有婚外情)在人群中相当普遍,而相关行为(例如一名男子谋杀其妻子)却很罕见时,情况尤其如此。他们的分析引发了弗里德曼、帕克以及凯伊和科勒的强烈回应,戴维斯和福利特也进行了反驳(这三篇文章都在本期《法律与人类行为》中相继发表)。本文描述了这场争议的一些本质情况。