Bad statistics shouldn't be considered adequate for anything. I have no problem with solid statistics being used assuming they have been properly scrutinized by

Bad statistics shouldn't be considered adequate for anything. I have no problem with solid statistics being used assuming they have been properly scrutinized by experts before being used to pass judgement. So many convictions come based on simple circumstantial evidence without even considering the statistical basis for those circumstances. Many convictions are entirely emotional bias on the part of the jury. Why should allowing statistical analysis to be considered as evidence be considered worse than the status quo?