Bare Statistical Evidence and the Right to Security

Courts and jurors sometimes refuse to assign liability defendants on the basis of statistics alone, despite their apparent reliability. I argue that this refusal is best understood as a recognition defendants’ right security. Understood robust good in Philip Pettit’s sense, security requires someone risking harm others’ protected interests adopt disposition concern controls against wrongfully harming them. Since trials risk harm, state must such disposition. Statistics leave open possibility innocence so wrongful way cannot ignore; if it does use statistics, makes insecure. This explanation problem bare statistical evidence especially apt because grounds fair trial judicial procedural rights more generally.