Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 7, Issue 2–3, pp 129–151 | Cite as

Out of their minds: legal theory in neural networks

  • Dan Hunter
Article

Abstract

This paper examines the use of connectionism (neural networks) in modelling legal reasoning. I discuss how the implementations of neural networks have failed to account for legal theoretical perspectives on adjudication. I criticise the use of neural networks in law, not because connectionism is inherently unsuitable in law, but rather because it has been done so poorly to date. The paper reviews a number of legal theories which provide a grounding for the use of neural networks in law. It then examines some implementations undertaken in law and criticises their legal theoretical naïvete. It then presents a lessons from the implementations which researchers must bear in mind if they wish to build neural networks which are justified by legal theories.

connectionism legal philosophy legal theory neural networks 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersen, J.A. and Rosenfeld, E. (eds.) 1989. Neurocomputing: Foundations of Research. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ashley, K.D. 1992. Case-based reasoning and its implications for legal expert systems, Artificial Intelligence and Law 1(2), 113–208.Google Scholar
  3. Bench-Capon, T.J.M. 1993. Neural networks and open texture. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Amsterdam: ACM Press, pp. 292–297.Google Scholar
  4. Birmingham, R. 1992. A study after Cardozo: De Cicco v. Schweizer, noncooperative games, and neural computing, University of Miami Law Review 47, 121–145.Google Scholar
  5. Bochereau, L., Bourcier, D., and Bourgine, P. 1991. Extracting legal knowledge by means of a multilayer neural network application to municipal jurisprudence. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Oxford: ACM Press, pp. 288–296.Google Scholar
  6. Boyle, J.D.A. 1985. The anatomy of a torts class, American University Law Review 34, 1003.Google Scholar
  7. Fausett, L.V. 1994. Fundamentals of Neural Networks: Architectures, Algorithms, and Applications. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Fernhout, F. 1989. Using a parallel distributed processing model as part of a legal expert system. In A.A. Martino (ed.), Pre-Proceedings of Third International Conference on Logica, Informatica, Diritto, Volume 1, Firenze: IDG, pp. 255–268.Google Scholar
  9. Fish, S. 1982. Working on the chain gang: Interpretation in law and literature, Texas Law Review 60, 551–567.Google Scholar
  10. Fish, S. 1983. Wrong again, Texas Law Review 62, 299–316.Google Scholar
  11. Frank, J. 1930. Law and the Modern Mind. Brentano. Republished 1963, Garden City: Anchor Books, 1970, Gloucester: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
  12. Gallant, S. 1993. Neural Network Learning and Expert Systems.Google Scholar
  13. Gray, J.C. 1924. The Nature and Sources of Law. 2nd ed, New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Groendijk, C. and Oskamp, A. 1993. Case recognition and strategy classification. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Amsterdam: ACM Press, pp. 125–132.Google Scholar
  15. Hobson, J.B and Slee, D. 1993 Rules, cases and networks in a legal domain, Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence 2(2),119–134.Google Scholar
  16. Hobson, J.B. and Slee, D. 1994 Indexing the Theft Act 1968 for case based reasoning and artificial neural networks. In Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence, unnumbered additions, Exeter: Exeter University Centre for Legal Interdisciplinary Development.Google Scholar
  17. Holmes, O.W. 1881. The Common Law. Boston: Little Brown & Co; reprinted London: Macmillan, 1968.Google Scholar
  18. Holmes, O.W. 1897. The path of the law, Harvard Law Review 10(8), 457.Google Scholar
  19. Hunter, D. 1994. Looking for law in all the wrong places: Legal theory and legal neural networks. In H. Prakken, A.J. Muntjewerff, A. Soeteman, and R. Winkels (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems: The Relation with Legal Theory. Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande, pp. 55–64.Google Scholar
  20. Kennedy, D. 1986. Freedom and constraint in adjudication: A critical phenomenology, Journal of Legal Education 36, 518.Google Scholar
  21. Kennedy, D. 1991. A semiotics of legal argument. Syracuse Law Review 42, 75.Google Scholar
  22. Kort, F. 1963a. Content analysis of judicial opinions and rules of law. In G. Schubert (ed.), Judicial Decision-Making, International Yearbook of Political Behavior Research, Vol. 4. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, pp. 133–197.Google Scholar
  23. Kort, F. 1963b. Simultaneous equations and boolean algebra in the analysis of judicial decisions, Law and Contemporary Problems 28(1), 143.Google Scholar
  24. Kort, F. 1965. Quantitative analysis of fact patterns in cases and their impact on judicial decision, Harvard Law Review 79, 1595.Google Scholar
  25. Lawlor, R.C. 1963. What computers can do: Analysis and prediction of judicial decisions, American Bar Association Journal 49(4), 337–344.Google Scholar
  26. Lawlor, R.C. 1964. Stare decisis and electronic computers. In G. Schubert (ed.), Judicial Behavior: A Reader in Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, pp. 503–505.Google Scholar
  27. Lawlor, R.C. 1968. Personal stare decisis, Southern California Law Review 41, 73–118.Google Scholar
  28. Lawlor, R.C. 1972. Fact content of cases and precedent — A modern theory of precedent. Jurimetrics Journal 12(4), 245–270.Google Scholar
  29. Lawlor, R.C. 1981. Analysis and prediction of judicial decisions, in R.P. Bigelow (ed), Computers and the Law: An Introductory Handbook (third edition). Chicago: American Bar Association, pp. 81–84.Google Scholar
  30. Llewellyn, K.N. 1931. Some realism about realism — Responding to Dean Pound, Harvard Law Review 44(8), 1222.Google Scholar
  31. Llewellyn, K.N. 1940. The normative, the legal and the law-jobs: The problem of juristic method, Yale Law Journal 49, 1355Google Scholar
  32. Luger, G.F. and Stubblefield, W.A. 1993. Artificial intelligence: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving. 2nd ed, Redwood City: Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
  33. McBarnett, D. 1981. Conviction: Law, the State, and the Construction of Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  34. McClelland, J., Rumelhart, D., and the PDP Research Group. 1988. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Michelman, F.I. 1983. Reflections on professional education, legal scholarship, and the law-and-economics movement. Journal of Legal Education 33, 197–209.Google Scholar
  36. Nagel, S.S. 1960. Using simple calculations to predict judicial decisions, American Behavioral Scientist 4(4), 24–28.Google Scholar
  37. Nagel, S.S. 1963, Off-the-bench judicial attitudes. In G. Schubert (ed.), Judicial Decision-Making, New York: Free Press of Glencoe, pp. 29–53.Google Scholar
  38. Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, the State and Utopia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Oskamp, A., Walker, R.F., Schrickx, J.A., and van den Berg, P.H. 1989. PROLEXS divide and rule: A legal application. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vancouver: ACM Press, pp. 54–62.Google Scholar
  40. Philipps, L. 1989. Are legal decisions based on the application of rules or prototype recognition? Legal science on the way to neural networks. In Pre-Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Logica, Informatica, Diritto. Florence: IDG, p. 673.Google Scholar
  41. Philipps, L. 1991. Distribution of damages in car accidents through the use of neural networks, Cardozo Law Review 13, 987–1000.Google Scholar
  42. Popple, J. 1993. SHYSTER: A Pragmatic Legal Expert System. PhD. diss., Department of Computer Science, Australian National University.Google Scholar
  43. Raghupathi, W. et al. 1991. Exploring connectionist approaches to legal decision making, Behavioural Science 36, 133–139.Google Scholar
  44. Rawls, J. 1972. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Rose, D.E. and Belew, R.K. 1989. Legal information retrieval — A hybrid approach. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Vancouver: ACM Press, pp. 138–146.Google Scholar
  46. Rose, D.E. and Belew, R.K. 1991. A connectionist and symbolic hybrid for improving legal research, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
  47. Rose, D.E. 1994 A symbolic and Connectionist Legal Information Retrieval System. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Schubert, G. (ed.) 1964. Judicial Behavior: A Reader in Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co.Google Scholar
  49. Schubert, G. 1968. The importance of computer technology to political science research in judicial behavior, Jurimetrics Journal 8(3), 56–63.Google Scholar
  50. Stranieri, A., Gawler, M., and Zeleznikow, J. 1994. Toulmin structures as a higher level abstraction for hybrid reasoning. In Proceedings of the Seventh Australian Artificial Intelligence Congress. Armidale: World Scientific, pp. 203–210.Google Scholar
  51. Stranieri, A. and Zeleznikow, J. 1992. SPLIT-UP — Expert system (sic) to determine spousal property distribution on litigation in the Family Court of Australia. In Proceedings of the Fifth Artificial Intelligence Congress. Hobart: World Scientific, pp. 51–56.Google Scholar
  52. Terrett, A. 1995. Neural networks — Towards predictive law machines, International Journal of Law and Information Technology 3(1), 95–111.Google Scholar
  53. Thagard, P. 1991. Connectionism and legal inference. Cardozo Law Review 13, 1001–1004.Google Scholar
  54. van Opdorp, G.J. and Walker, R.F. 1990. A neural network approach to open texture. In H.W.K. Kasperen and A. Oskamp (eds), Amongst Friends in Computers and Law, Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation.Google Scholar
  55. van Opdorp, G.J., Walker, R.F., Schrickx, J.A., Groendijk, C., and van den Berg, P.H. 1991. Networks at work: a connectionist approach to non-deductive legal reasoning. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Oxford: ACM Press, pp. 278–287.Google Scholar
  56. Walker, R.F., Oskamp, A., Schrickx, J.A., Opdorp, G.J., and van den Berg, P.H. 1991. PROLEXS: Creating law and order in a heterogeneous domain. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35(1), 35–68.Google Scholar
  57. Warner, D.R. 1989. Towards a simple law machine, Jurimetrics 29, 451–467.Google Scholar
  58. Warner, D.R. 1990. The role of neural networks in law machine development. Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal 16, 129–144.Google Scholar
  59. Warner, D.R. 1992. A neural network based law machine: Initial steps, Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal 18, 51–63.Google Scholar
  60. Warner, D.R. 1993. A neural network-based law machine: The problem of legitimacy, Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence 2(2), 135–147.Google Scholar
  61. Winston, P.H. 1992. Artificial Intelligence. Third edition, Reading, Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  62. Zurada, J.M. 1992. Introduction to Artificial Neural Systems. St Paul: West Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan Hunter
    • 1
  1. 1.Law SchoolUniversity of MelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations