Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 153–174 | Cite as

Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law

Article

Abstract

This paper studies the use of hypothetical and value-based reasoning in US Supreme-Court cases concerning the United States Fourth Amendment. Drawing upon formal AI & Law models of legal argument a semi-formal reconstruction is given of parts of the Carney case, which has been studied previously in AI & law research on case-based reasoning. As part of the reconstruction, a semi-formal proposal is made for extending the formal AI & Law models with forms of metalevel reasoning in several argument schemes. The result is compared with Rissland’s (1989) analysis in terms of dimensions and Ashley’s (2008) analysis in terms of his process model of legal argument with hypotheticals.

References

  1. Amgoud L, Bodenstaff L, Caminada M, McBurney P, Parsons S, Prakken H, van Veenen J, Vreeswijk G (2006) Final review and report on formal argumentation system. Deliverable D2.6, ASPIC IST-FP6-002307Google Scholar
  2. Ashley K (2008) A process model of legal argument with hypotheticals. In: Francesconi E, Sartor G, Tiscornia (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2008: the twentyfirst annual conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  3. Bench-Capon T (1991) Knowledge based systems applied to law: a framework for discussion. In: Bench-Capon T (eds) Knowledge based systems and legal applications. Academic Press, London, pp 329–342Google Scholar
  4. Bench-Capon T (2009) Towards computational modelling of Supreme Court opinions: Furman v Georgia. In: Atkinson K (eds) Modelling legal cases. Vol. 5 of IDT Series. Huygens Editorial, Barcelona, pp 63–75Google Scholar
  5. Bench-Capon T, Prakken H (2009) A case study of hypothetical and value-based reasoning in US Supreme-Court cases. In: Governatori G (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2009: the twenty-second annual conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 11–20Google Scholar
  6. Bench-Capon T, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150:97–143MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bex F (2009) Evidence for a good story. A hybrid theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence. Doctoral dissertation Faculty of Law, University of GroningenGoogle Scholar
  8. Dung P (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artif Intell 77:321–357MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Gordon T, Walton D (2009) Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes. In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 137–146Google Scholar
  10. Hage J (1996) A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artif Intell Law 4:199–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hage J (2004) Comparing alternatives in the law. Legal applications of qualitative comparative reasoning. Artif Intell Law 12:181–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamfelt A (1995) Formalizing multiple interpretation of legal knowledge. Artif Intell Law 3:221–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kowalski R, Kim J (1991) A metalogic programming approach to multi-agent knowledge and belief. In: Lifschitz V (eds) Artificial intelligence and mathematical theory of computation: papers in Honour of John McCarthy. Academic Press, Boston, pp 231–246Google Scholar
  14. Lessig L (1993) Fidelity in translation. Texas Law Rev 71(6):1165Google Scholar
  15. Lewis D (1973) Counterfactuals. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Loui R, Norman J (1995) Rationales and argument moves. Artif Intell Law 3:159–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mackie J (1973) Truth, probability and paradox. OUP, OxfordMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Modgil S (2009) Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif Intell 173:901–934MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Modgil S, Prakken H (2010) Reasoning about preferences in structured extended argumentation frameworks. In: Baroni G, Simari G (eds) Computational models of argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2010. IOS Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  20. Prakken H (2002) An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artif Intell Law 10:113–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prakken H (2010) An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput 1Google Scholar
  22. Prakken H (2011) Reconstructing Popov v. Hayashi in a framework for argumentation with structured arguments and Dungean semantics. Knowl Eng Rev. Available at: http://www.cs.uu.nl/groups/IS/archive/henry/ker09.pdf (to appear)
  23. Prakken H, Sartor G (1997) Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J Appl Non-class Logics 7:25–75MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Rissland E (1989) Dimension-based analysis of hypotheticals from Supreme Court oral arguments. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 111–120Google Scholar
  25. Routen T, Bench-Capon TJM (1991) Hierarchical formalizations. Int J Man Mach Stud 35(1):69–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sartor G (2009) Legal policies and theories of legality: from bananas to Radbruch’s formula. Ratio Juris 22:218–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Department of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Faculty of LawUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations