Interesting! In my experience working in US criminal defense firms, lawyers just don't buy into probability theory as a way of understanding legal proof. If you ask what % credence "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," constitutes, they'll tell you that there isn't and can't be an answer. Reasonable doubt is usually described as a sort of nebulous psychological state where 1) your mind has produced a doubt about X and 2) you think the doubt is "reasonable" in some vague conventional sense of being intuitive, familiar, etc. If either (1) or (2) are absent from your brain at the time of the decision, you have PBARD.
This isn't quite to your point, but in the UK system, there have been rulings banning the use of Bayesian statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Adams (the defense was trying to illustrate that the state was using the prosecutor's fallacy - no one got it).
Interesting! In my experience working in US criminal defense firms, lawyers just don't buy into probability theory as a way of understanding legal proof. If you ask what % credence "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," constitutes, they'll tell you that there isn't and can't be an answer. Reasonable doubt is usually described as a sort of nebulous psychological state where 1) your mind has produced a doubt about X and 2) you think the doubt is "reasonable" in some vague conventional sense of being intuitive, familiar, etc. If either (1) or (2) are absent from your brain at the time of the decision, you have PBARD.
This isn't quite to your point, but in the UK system, there have been rulings banning the use of Bayesian statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Adams (the defense was trying to illustrate that the state was using the prosecutor's fallacy - no one got it).
Probabilities are relevant to tradeoffs