AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 28–38 | Cite as

Pragmatism and purism in artificial intelligence and legal reasoning

  • Richard Susskind
Article
  • 60 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence Expert systems Legal reasoning Expert systems in law Artificial intelligence and law Computers and law Law on latent damage Legal theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Notes

  1. 1.
    McCarty, L. Thorne. (1977). Reflections on TAXMAN: An Experiment in Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning.Harvard Law Review. 90. 837.Google Scholar
  2. 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. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gardner, A.v.d.L. (1987).An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Waterman, D., Paul, J. and M. Peterson. (1986). Expert Systems for Legal Decision Making.Expert Systems. s.212.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bing, J. (ed.) (1987).F⋆KUS: Knowledge Based Systems for Public Administration. Norwegian University Press, Oslo.Google Scholar
  8. 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. 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. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Susskind, R.E. (1987).Expert Systems in Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Ibid. pp. 237–245.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dworkin, R.M.Law's Empire. (1986). Collins Fontana, Glasgow. 17.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    See Susskind, R.E. (1987).Expert Systems in Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Capper, P.N. and Susskind, R.E. (1988).Latent Damage Law — The Expert System. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Susskind, R.E. (1988). Government Applications of Expert Systems in Law. In Duffin (ed.)IKBS in Government. Ellis Horwood, Chichester.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    See Gardner, A.v.d.L. (1987).An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  20. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Susskind
    • 1
  1. 1.Ernst & Whinney Chartered Accountants, Becket HouseLondonUK

Personalised recommendations