A Critique of the Theory of Comparative Propensity

Dublin Core

Title

A Critique of the Theory of Comparative Propensity

Subject

propensity
tendency
coincidence
evidence
prior conduct

Description

The law of propensity evidence is in a state of flux in Australia as various State jurisdictions decide on their responses to recommendations of the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.  Controversy persists about the probative value of such evidence, not limited to child sexual assault cases. An influential theory in this area is the theory of comparative propensity, advocated by Professor Hamer, and approved in a qualified way by the Royal Commission.  The theory employs a mathematical model based on Bayes’ equation to estimate the probative value of such evidence. This article critiques the theory and concludes that it does not reflect the real world factors that impact the probative value of such evidence.

Creator

Robinson, Peter

Source

The University of Queensland Law Journal; Vol. 41 No. 3 (2022): The University of Queensland Law Journal; 243-276
1839-289X
0083-4041

Publisher

The University of Queensland School of Law

Date

2022-11-20

Rights

Copyright (c) 2022 The University of Queensland Law Journal

Relation

Format

application/pdf

Language

eng

Type

info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Peer-reviewed Article

Identifier

Citation

Peter Robinson, A Critique of the Theory of Comparative Propensity, The University of Queensland School of Law, 2022, accessed November 1, 2024, http://igi.indrastra.com/items/show/2683

Social Bookmarking