This inequality serves to identify the probability threshold that should be met for decisions against the defendant. When the cost ratio \(\slashfrac{c(CI)}{c(AG)}\) is set to 9—which might be appropriate in a criminal case since convicting an innocent is often considered more harmful than acquitting a guilty defendant (however, see Laudan 2016)—the inequality holds only if \(\Pr(G \pmid E)\) meets the .9 threshold. The same analysis mutatis mutandis applies to civil cases in which mistaken decisions comprise mistaken attributions of liability (false positives) and mistaken failures to attribute liability (false negatives). If the cost ratio is one—as might be appropriate in a civil case in which false positives and false negatives are equally harmful—the inequality holds only if the probability that the defendant is liable meets the .5 threshold.