Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 11, Issue 2–3, pp 125–165 | Cite as

Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations

  • Floris Bex
  • Henry Prakken
  • Chris Reed
  • Douglas Walton
Article

Abstract

This paper studies the modelling of legal reasoning about evidence within general theories of defeasible reasoning and argumentation. In particular, Wigmore's method for charting evidence and its use by modern legal evidence scholars is studied in order to give a formal underpinning in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. Two notions turn out to be crucial, viz. argumentation schemes and empirical generalisations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, T. J. (1999). On Generalisations I: A Preliminary Exploration. South Texas Law Review, 455–481.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, T. J. and Twining, W. (1991). Analysis of Evidence: How to Do Things with Facts Based on Wigmore 's Science of Judicial Proof. Little, Brown and Company: Boston.Google Scholar
  3. Bex, F. J. (2003). Formalising evidential reasoning. Student Paper Cognitive Artificial Intelligence, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  4. Bromby, M. C. and Hall, M. J. J. (2002). The Development and Rapid Evaluation of the Knowledge Model of Advokate: An Advisory System to Assess the Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony. In Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Daskalopulu A. and Winkels R. G. F. (eds), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, JURIX 2002: The Fifteenth Annual Conference, 143–152. Amsterdam, IOS Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dung, P. M. (1995). On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, and n-Person Games. Artificial Intelligence 77: 321–357.Google Scholar
  6. Hage, J. C. (1996). A Theory of Legal Reasoning and a Logic to Match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 199–273.Google Scholar
  7. Hastings, A. C. (1963). A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Ph. D. Diss., Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  8. Hitchcock, D. (2003). Toulmin 's Warrants. In van Eemeren, F. H. et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, 485–490. Amsterdam SicSat.Google Scholar
  9. Jøsang, A. and Bondi, V. A. (2000). Legal Reasoning With Subjective Logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8: 289–315.Google Scholar
  10. Kadane, J. B. and Schum, D. A. (1996). A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence. John Wiley & Sons: New York.Google Scholar
  11. Keppens, J. and Zeleznikow, J. (2003). A Model based Reasoning approach for generating plausible crime scenarios from evidence. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law, 51–59. ACM Press: New York.Google Scholar
  12. Kienpointner, M. (1992). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Fromman-Holzboog: Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  13. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J. and Carr, C. S. (2003) (eds.). Visualizing Argumen-tation. Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making, 75–96. London: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Krause, P., Ambler, S. Elvang-Gøransson, M. and Fox, J. (1995). A logic of Argumentation for Reasoning Under Uncertainty. Computational Intelligence 11: 113–131.Google Scholar
  15. Lempert, R. (1986). The New Evidence Scholarship: Analyzing the Process of Proof. Boston University Law Review 66: 439–477.Google Scholar
  16. Loui, R. P. and Norman, J. (1995). Rationales and Argument Moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law 3: 159–189.Google Scholar
  17. Loui, R. P., Norman, J., Alpeter, J., Pinkard, D., Craven, D., Linsday, J. and Foltz, M. (1997). Progress on Room 5: A testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law, 207–214. ACM Press: New York.Google Scholar
  18. Lutomski, L. S. (1989). The design of an attorney 's statistical consultant. Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law, 224–233. ACM Press: New York.Google Scholar
  19. Malsch, M. and Nijboer, J. F. (eds.) (1999). Complex Cases. Perspectives on the Netherlands Criminal Justice System, Thela Thesis: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Morsek, L. (2001). Get on Board for the Ride of Your Life!The Ups, the Downs, the Twists, and the Turns of the Applicability of the ''Gatekeeper ''Function to Scientific and Non-Scientific Expert Evidence. Akron Law Review 34: 689–739.Google Scholar
  21. Perelman, Ch. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric (La Nouvelle Rhetorique). University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  22. Pollock, J. L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11: 481–518.Google Scholar
  23. Pollock, J. L. (1995). Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  24. Pollock, J. L. (1998). Perceiving and Reasoning About a Changing World. Computational Intelligence 14: 498–562.Google Scholar
  25. Prakken, H. (2004). Analysing Reasoning About Evidence With Formal Models of Argumentation. Law, Probability and Risk 3: 33–50.Google Scholar
  26. Prakken, H., Reed, C., and Walton, D. N. (2003). Argumentation schemes and generalisations in reasoning about evidence. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law, 32–41. ACM Press: New York.Google Scholar
  27. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 331–368.Google Scholar
  28. Reed, C. A. and Walton, D. N. (2001). Applications of Argumentation Schemes. Proceedings of the 4th OSSA Conference. Ontario.Google Scholar
  29. Reed, C. A. and Rowe, G. W. A (2001). Araucaria: Software for Puzzles in Argument Diagramming and XML. Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee Technical Report. [The Araucaria software can be downloaded from www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/]Google Scholar
  30. Schum, D. A. (1994). The Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning. John Wiley and Sons: New York.Google Scholar
  31. Schum, D. A. (2001). Alternative Views of Argument Construction From a Mass of Evidence. Cardozo Law Review 22: 1461–1502.Google Scholar
  32. Schum, D. A. and Tillers, P. (1991). Marshalling Evidence for Adversary Litigation. Cardozo Law Review 13: 657–704.Google Scholar
  33. Tribe, L. (1971). Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process. Harvard Law Review 84: 1329–1393.Google Scholar
  34. Twining, W. (1999). Necessary but dangerous? Generalisations and narrative in argumentation about ''facts ''in criminal process. In Malsch and Nijboer (ed.), 69–98.Google Scholar
  35. Verheij, B. (1996). Rules, Reasons, Arguments. Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Maastricht.Google Scholar
  36. Verheij, B. (1999). Automated Argument Assistance for Lawyers. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law, 43–52. ACM Press: New York.Google Scholar
  37. Verheij, B. (2000). Dialectical argumentation as a heuristic for courtroom decision-making. In van Koppen, P. J. and Roos, N. H. M. (eds.), Rationality, Information and Progress in Law and Psychology. Liber Amoricum Hans F. Crombag, 203–226. Maastricht: Metajuridica Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Verheij, B. (2002). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: Towards a Methodology for the Investigation of Argumentation Schemes. In proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Argumentation (ISSA-2002). Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  39. Wagenaar, W. A., Koppen, P. J. van, and Crombag, H. (1993). Anchored Narratives. The Psychology of Criminal Evidence. St. Martin 's Press: New York.Google Scholar
  40. Walton, D. N. (1996a). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, N. J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Walton, D. N. (1996b). Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. University of Toronto Press: Toronto.Google Scholar
  42. Walton, D. N. (1997). Appeal to Expert Opinion. Penn State Press: University Park.Google Scholar
  43. Wigmore, J. H. (1931). The Principles of Judicial Proof, 2nd ed. Little, Brown and Company: Boston.Google Scholar
  44. Young, W. and Kaiser, D. (1985). Postmortem: New Evidence in the Case of Sacco and Vanzetti. University of Massachusetts Press: Amherst.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Floris Bex
    • 1
  • Henry Prakken
    • 2
  • Chris Reed
    • 3
  • Douglas Walton
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands; E-mail:
  2. 2.Faculty of LawUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Division of Applied ComputingUniversity of DundeeDundeeUK; E-mail:
  4. 4.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WinnipegManitobaCanada

Personalised recommendations