Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pragmatism and purism in artificial intelligence and legal reasoning

  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper identifies and assesses the implications of two approaches to the field of artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. The first — pragmatism — concentrates on the development of working systems to the exclusion of theoretical problems. The second — purism — focuses on the nature of the law and of intelligence with no regard for the delivery of commercially viable systems. Past work in AI and law is classified in terms of this division. By reference to The Latent Damage System, an operational system, the paper articulates and responds to conceivable purist (jurisprudential and AI) objections to such a program. The methods of the pragmatist are also called into question and refined. The author concludes that pragmatism within a purist framework is the only sound approach to developing reliable AI systems in law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Notes

  1. McCarty, L. Thorne. (1977). Reflections on TAXMAN: An Experiment in Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning.Harvard Law Review. 90. 837.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sergot, M., Sadri, F., Kowlaski, R., Kriwaczek, F., Hammond, P. and H. Cory. (1986). The British Nationality Act as a Logic Program.Communications of the ACM. 29. 370.

    Google Scholar 

  3. For a review of the system in question, see Susskind, R.E. (1987). Expert Systems in Law and the Data Protection Adviser.Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 7. 145.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Some of Phillip Leith's early work is described inELI: An Expert Legislative Consultant (Conference Publication No. 212, presented at IEE Conference on Man/Machine Systems, UMIST, 6–9 July, 1982). An example of his later work is The Application of AI to Law, (1988).AI & Society. 2. 31.

  5. Gardner, A.v.d.L. (1987).An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Waterman, D., Paul, J. and M. Peterson. (1986). Expert Systems for Legal Decision Making.Expert Systems. s.212.

  7. Bing, J. (ed.) (1987).F⋆KUS: Knowledge Based Systems for Public Administration. Norwegian University Press, Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Smith, J.C. and C. Deedman. (1987). The Application of Expert Systems Technology to Case-Based Law, inProceedings of The First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Greenleaf, G., Mowbray, A. and A.L. Tyree. (1987). Expert Systems in Law: The DataLex Project, inProceedings of The First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  10. For a full exposition of this area of law, see Capper, P.N. (1987).The Latent Damage Act 1986: The Impact on the Professions and the Construction Industry. Legal Studies and Services Ltd., London.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See Gold, D.I. and R.E. Susskind. (1985). Expert Systems in Law: A Jurisprudential and Formal Specification Approach, in Martino and Natali (eds.)Atti Preliminari Del II Convegno Internazionale di studi su Logica, Informatica, Diritto. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Istituto per la documentazione giuridica, IBI.

  12. Susskind, R.E. (1987).Expert Systems in Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ibid. pp. 237–245.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dworkin, R.M.Law's Empire. (1986). Collins Fontana, Glasgow. 17.

  16. See Susskind, R.E. (1987).Expert Systems in Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Capper, P.N. and Susskind, R.E. (1988).Latent Damage Law — The Expert System. Butterworth, London.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Susskind, R.E. (1988). Government Applications of Expert Systems in Law. In Duffin (ed.)IKBS in Government. Ellis Horwood, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See Gardner, A.v.d.L. (1987).An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  20. For further details on the commercial exploitation of expert systems in law, see Susskind, R.E. (1987). Expert Systems in Law: Out of the Research Laboratory and into the Marketplace. InProceedings of 1st International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ernst & Whinney Chartered Accountants, Becket House, 1 Lambeth Palace Road, SE1 7EU, London, UK

    Richard Susskind

Authors
  1. Richard Susskind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Susskind, R. Pragmatism and purism in artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. AI & Soc 3, 28–38 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01892673

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01892673

Keywords

Search

Navigation