Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 123–152 | Cite as

A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence

  • Floris J. Bex
  • Peter J. van Koppen
  • Henry Prakken
  • Bart Verheij


This paper presents a theory of reasoning with evidence in order to determine the facts in a criminal case. The focus is on the process of proof, in which the facts of the case are determined, rather than on related legal issues, such as the admissibility of evidence. In the literature, two approaches to reasoning with evidence can be distinguished, one argument-based and one story-based. In an argument-based approach to reasoning with evidence, the reasons for and against the occurrence of an event, e.g., based on witness testimony, are central. In a story-based approach, evidence is evaluated and interpreted from the perspective of the factual stories as they may have occurred in a case, e.g., as they are defended by the prosecution. In this paper, we argue that both arguments and narratives are relevant and useful in the reasoning with and interpretation of evidence. Therefore, a hybrid approach is proposed and formally developed, doing justice to both the argument-based and the narrative-based perspective. By the formalization of the theory and the associated graphical representations, our proposal is the basis for the design of software developed as a tool to make sense of the evidence in complex cases.


Argumentation Stories Legal evidence 



The research reported in this paper has been performed in the project ‘Making sense of evidence. Software support for crime investigations’, supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) (ToKeN2000, project number 634.000.429).


  1. Anderson TJ, Schum DA, Twining WL (2005) Analysis of evidence, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett WL, Feldman MS (1981) Reconstructing reality in the courtroom: justice and judgment in american culture. Methuen–Tavistock, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bex FJ (2009) Evidence for a good story: a hybrid theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence. Doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Law, University of GroningenGoogle Scholar
  4. Bex FJ, Verheij B (2010) Het onderbouwen van een feitelijk oordeel in een strafzaak (Supporting a factual judgment in a criminal case). In: Van Koppen PJ, Merckelbach H, Jelicic M, De Keijser JW (eds) Reizen met Mijn Rechter. Psychologie van het Recht, 935–952. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  5. Bex FJ, Prakken H, Reed C, Walton DN (2003) Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artif Intell Law 11:125–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bex FJ, Braak SW, van den Oostendorp H, van Prakken H, Verheij B, Vreeswijk G (2007a) Sense–making software for crime investigation: how to combine stories and arguments? Law Probab Risk 6:145–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bex FJ, Prakken H, Verheij B (2007b) Formalising argumentative story–based analysis of evidence. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, 1–10, ACM Press, New York (New York)Google Scholar
  8. Bex FJ, Bench-Capon TJM, Atkinson KD (2009) Did he jump or was he pushed? Abductive practical reasoning. Artif Intell Law 17:79–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bondarenko A, Dung PM, Kowalski RA, Toni F (1997) An abstract, argumentation–theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif Intell 93:63–101zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Braak SW, van den Oostendorp H, van Vreeswijk G, Prakken H (2008) Representing narrative and testimonial knowledge in sense–making software for crime analysis. In: Francesconi E, Sartor G, Tiscornia D (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2008: The 21st annual conference, 160–169. IOS Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. Caminada M (2006) On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher M, van der Hoek W, Konev B, Lisitsa A (eds) Logics in artificial intelligence, 10th European Conference, Jelia 2006. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4160. Springer, Berlin, pp 111–123Google Scholar
  12. Cohen LJ (1977) The probable and the provable. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Console L, Torasso P (1991) A spectrum of logical definitions of model–based diagnosis. Comput Intell 7:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Poot CJ, Bokhorst RJ, Koppen PJ, van Muller ER (2004) Rechercheportret—over dillemma’s in de opsporing. Kluwer, Alphen a.d. Rijn (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  15. Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n–person games. Artif Intell 77:321–357zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Gabbay DM, Woods J (2006) Advice on abductive logic. Logic J IGPL 14:189–219zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Gordon TF (2007) Visualizing Carneades argument graphs. Law Probab Risk 6:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gordon TF, Walton D (2009) Proof burdens and standards. In: Rahwan I, Simari G (eds) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  19. Hage JC (1996) A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artif Intell Law 4:199–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hepler AB, Dawid AP, Leucari V (2007) Object–oriented graphical representations of complex patterns of evidence. Law Probab Risk 6:275–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heuer RJ (1999) Psychology of intelligence analysis. Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence AgencyGoogle Scholar
  22. Josephson JR (2002) On the proof dynamics of inference to the best explanation. In: MacCrimmon M, Tillers P (eds) The dynamics of judicial proof—computation, logic and common sense. Physica, Berlin, pp 287–306Google Scholar
  23. Keppens J, Schäfer B (2006) Knowledge based crime scenario modelling. Expert Syst Appl 30:203–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nijboer JF, Sennef A (1999) Justification. In: Nijboer JF, Malsch M (eds) Complex cases: perspectives on the Netherlands criminal justice system. Thela Thesis, Amsterdam, pp 11–26Google Scholar
  25. Pardo MS, Allen RJ (2007) Juridical proof and the best explanation. Law Philos 27:223–268 SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pennington N, Hastie R (1993) Reasoning in explanation–based decision making. Cognition 49:123–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pollock JL (1995) Cognitive carpentry: a blueprint for how to build a person. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Prakken H (2010) An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput 1, to appearGoogle Scholar
  29. Prakken H, Renooij S (2001) Reconstructing causal reasoning about evidence: a case study. In Verheij B, Lodder AR, Loui RP, Muntjewerff A (eds.) Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2001: The 14th annual conference, 160–169, IOS Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. Prakken H, Sartor G (1997) Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J Appl Non–classical Logics 7:25–75zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. Prakken H, Sartor G (2009) A logical analysis of burdens of proof. In: Kaptein H, Prakken H, Verheij B (eds) Legal evidence and proof: statistics, Stories, Logic. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  32. Prakken H, Vreeswijk G (2002) Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay D, Guenthner F (eds) Handbook of philosophical logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 219–318Google Scholar
  33. Reed CA, Rowe CWA (2004) Araucaria: software for argument diagramming, analysis and representation. Int J AI Tools 13:961–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schank RC, Abelson RP (1977) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures. Lawrence Erlbaum, HillsdalezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Schum DA (1994) The evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning. Northwestern University Press, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  36. Simon D (2001) A third view of the black box: cognitive coherence in legal decision making. Univ Chicago Law Rev 71:511–586Google Scholar
  37. Thagard P (2004) Causal inference in legal decision making: explanatory coherence vs. Bayesian networks. Appl Artif Intell 18:231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thagard P (2005) Testimony, credibility, and explanatory coherence. Erkenntnis 63:295–316zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thagard P, Shelley CP (1997) Abductive reasoning: logic, visual thinking, and coherence. In: Chiara MLD (ed) Logic and scientific methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  40. Tillers P (2005) Picturing inference. In: Schünemann B, Tinnefeld M-T, Wittmann R (eds) Gerechtigkeitswissenschaft, Kolloquium aus Anlass des 70. Geburtstages von Lothar Philipps. Berliner Wissenschafts, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  41. Toulmin SE (2003) The uses of argument, updated edition (originally published in 1958). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. van den Braak SW (2010) Sensemaking software for crime analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht UniversityGoogle Scholar
  43. Verheij B (1996) Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages. In Meyer J-JC, van der Gaag LC (eds.) In: Proceedings of the 8th Dutch conference on artificial intelligence (NAIC-96), pp 357–368Google Scholar
  44. Verheij B (2000) Anchored narratives and dialectical argumentation. In: Van Koppen PJ, Roos N (eds) Rationality, information and progress in law and psychology. Liber Amicorum Hans F. Crombag. Metajuridica Publications, Maastricht, pp 203–226Google Scholar
  45. Verheij B (2003) DefLog: on the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. J Logic Comput 13(3):319–346zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  46. Verheij B (2005) Virtual arguments: on the design of argument assistants for lawyers and other arguers. T.M.C. Asser Press, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  47. Vreeswijk G (1997) Abstract argumentation systems. Artif Intell 90:225–279zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  48. Wagenaar WA, Koppen PJ, van Crombag HFM (1993) Anchored narratives: the psychology of criminal evidence. St. Martin’s Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Walton DN (2002) Legal argumentation and evidence. Penn. State University Press, University ParkGoogle Scholar
  50. Walton DN, Reed CA, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Wigmore JH (1931) The principles of judicial proof or the process of proof as given by logic, psychology, and general experience, and illustrated in judicial trials, 2nd edn. Little Brown and Company, BostonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Floris J. Bex
    • 1
  • Peter J. van Koppen
    • 2
    • 3
  • Henry Prakken
    • 4
    • 5
  • Bart Verheij
    • 6
  1. 1.Argumentation Research Group, School of ComputingUniversity of DundeeDundeeUK
  2. 2.Faculty of LawMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Faculty of LawFree University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Law and ICT, Faculty of LawUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Department of Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations