Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Criminal Sentencing and Intelligent Decision Support

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alty, J.L. and Coombs, M.J. 1984. Expert systems. Manchester: NCC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K.D. 1990. Modelling Legal Argument. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K.D. 1992. Case-based reasoning and its implications for legal expert systems, Artificial Intelligence and Law 1, 113–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. 1984. Techniques of guidance on sentencing, The Criminal Law Review 519–530.

  • Ashworth, A. 1991. Sentence reform structures, In M. Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice – A Review of Research. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 16: 181–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. 1992. Three techniques for reducing sentence disparity. In A. von Hirsch and A. Ashworth (eds.), Principled sentencing. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 282–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. 1995. Sentencing and Criminal Justice. 2nd edn., London: Butterworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain, W.M. 1986. Case-based reasoning: A computer model of subjective assessment. Ph.D. thesis. Yale University.

  • Berman, D.H. and Hafner, C.D. 1989. The potential of artificial intelligence to help solve the crisis in our legal system, Communications of the ACM 32, 928–938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D.H. and Hafner, C.D. 1995. Understanding precedents in a temporal context of evolving legal doctrine. In Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-95). College Park, MD: ACM Press, pp. 42–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bing, J. 1987. Designing text retrieval systems for conceptual searching. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artficial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-87). Boston: ACM Press, pp. 43–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bing, J. 1989. The law of the books and the law of the files. In G.P.V. Vandenberghe (ed.), Advanced topics of law and information technology. Amsterdam: KIuwer, pp. 151–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branting, L.K. 1991. Reasoning with portions of precedents. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-91). Oxford: ACM Press, pp. 145–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratley, P., Fremont, J., Mackaay, E., and Poulin, D. 1991. Coping with change. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-91). Oxford: ACM Press, pp. 69–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, L.R., Allen, S.W., and Norman, G. 1989. The multiple and variable availability of familiar cases. In C. Hammond (ed.), Proceedings: Workshop on case-based reasoning (DARPA). San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 130–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrows, J., Henderson, P., and Morgan, P. 1994. Methodology: A project to improve bail decisions. Presented at: Conference of the American Society of Criminology. Miami, USA.

  • Chan, J. 1991. A computerised sentencing information system for New South Wales courts, Computer Law and Practice 137–150.

  • Chandrasekaran, B. and Mittal, S. 1982. Deep versus compiled knowledge approaches to diagnostic problem-solving, Proceedings AAAI-82. Los Altos, California: Morgan Kaufman Publishers, pp. 349–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H., Lynch, K.J., Basu, K., and Ng, T.D. 1993. Generating, integrating and activating thesauri for concept-based document retrieval, IEEE Expert 8(2), 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clancey, W.J. 1983. The epistemology of a rule-based expert system – a framework for explanation, Artificial Intelligence 20: 215–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R., Buchanan, B., and Shortliffe, E. 1977. Production rules as a representation for a knowledge-based consultation program. Artificial Intelligence 8, 15–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. and Lenat, D.B. 1982. Knowledge-based systems in artificial intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMulder, R.V. and Gubby, H.M. 1983. Legal decision making by computer: An experiment with sentencing, Computer/Law Journal IV, 243–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Denning Lord Alfred Thompson 1953. Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, 1949–53 Report, Cmd. 8932, London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. 1924. Logical method and law, Cornell Law Quarterly 10, 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, J.P. Representation of legal text for conceptual retrieval. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-91), Oxford: ACM Press, pp. 244–253.

  • Doob, A.N. and Park, N.W. 1987. Computerized sentencing information for judges, Criminal Law Quarterly 30, 54–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfuss, H.L. 1992. What Computers Still Can't Do. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, M.G. 1983. In-depth understanding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbus, K.D. 1988. Quantitative physics: Past, present and future. In H. Shrobe (ed.), Exploring artificial intelligence. San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J.A. 1981. Models in quantitative criminology. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freed, S.J. 1992. Federal sentencing in the wake of guidelines: unacceptable limits of the discretion of sentences. Yale Law Journal 101(8): 1681–1754.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, A. 1987. An artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT/Bradford Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. 1991. Sociological perspectives in punishment. In M. Tonry (ed.), Crime and justice – a review of research, Vol. 14. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 115–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. 1989. Finding the needle: Accessing and reasoning from prior cases. In C. Hammond (ed.), Proceedings: Workshop on case-based reasoning (DARPA). San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 137–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, A. 1993. A unified approach to automatic indexing and information retrieval, IEEE Expert 8(5), 46–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenleaf, G. 1991. Information technology and the law, Australian Law Journal 65: 45–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner, C.D. 1978. An information retrieval system based on a conceptual model of legal knowledge. Ph.D. Thesis. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner, C.D. 1987. Conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases. In First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-87). Boston: ACM Press, pp. 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H.A.L. 1963. Law liberty and morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassett, P. 1993. Can expert system technology contribute to improved bail conditions, Int. J. of Law and Information Technology 1, 144–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassett, P. 1994. Private communication.

  • Hogarth, J. 1988. Computer and the law: Sentencing database system, user's guide. Vancouver: LIST Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office White Paper 1996. Protecting the public: The government's strategy on crime in England and Wales. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, B. 1987. Justice through punishment – A critique of the 'justice' model of correction. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, N., Patterson, A., Tata, C., and Wilson, J. 1995. Decision support for sentencing in a common law jurisdiction, Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-95). Washington D.C.: ACM Press, pp. 89–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. and Keravnou, E.T. 1985. Expert systems technology. London: Abacus Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kass, A.M., Leake, D.B., and Owens, C.C. 1986a. Swale: A program that explains. In R.C. Schank (ed.), Explanation patterns: Understanding mechanically and creatively. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 232–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kass, A.M. 1986b. Modifying explanations to understand stories, Proceedings of the Eigth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Amherst, MA.

  • Kass, A.M. 1989. Adaption-based explanation: Extending script/frame theory to handle novel input, Proceedings of IJCAI-89. San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 141–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kass A.M. 1990. Developing creative hypotheses. Technical Report #6. Northwestern University, Illinois: Institute for the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J.L. 1981. Organization and retrieval in a conceptual memory for events, Proceedings of IJCAI-81. San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 227–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. 1983. Maintaining organization in a conceptual memory for events, Cognitive Science 7: 281–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J.L., Simpson, R.L., and Sycara-Cyranski, K. 1985. A computer model of case-based reasoning in problem solving. Proceedings of IJCAI-85. San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 284–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J.L. 1988. Retrieving events from a case memory: A parallel implementation, Proceedings of a Workshop on CBR. San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 233–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. 1993. Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leake, D. 1992. Evaluating explanations: A content theory, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehnert, W., Dyer, MG., Johnson, P, Yang, C., and Harley, S. 1983. BORIS – An experiment in in-depth understanding of narratives, Artificial Intelligence 20, 15–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovegrove, A. 1987. An evaluation of judicial models for sentencing guidelines In D.C. Pennington and S. Lloyd-Bostock (eds.), The psychology of sentencing: Approaches to consistency and disparity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 133–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovegrove, A. 1989. Judicial decision making sentencing policy and numerical guidance. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, R. 1974. What work? – Questions and answers about prison reform', The Public Interest 35, 22–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mital, V., Stylianou, A., and Johnson, L. 1991. Conceptual information retrieval in litigation support systems. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-91). Oxford: ACM Press, pp. 235–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murbach, R. and Nonn, E. 1993. Similarity in harder cases. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAJL-93). Amsterdam: ACM Press, pp. 236–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R. 1985. An economic theory of criminal law, Columbia Law Review 85, 1193–1231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redmond, M. 1990. Distributed cases for case-based reasoning; facilitating use of multiple cases, Proceedings of AAAI-90. Boston: American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 304–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, D. and Beck, T. 1993. Tennessee offender management information system, AI Magazine 14(3): 61–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riesbeck, C.K. and Schank, R.C. 1989. Inside case-based reasoning. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E.L. and Ashley, K.D. 1987. A case-based system for trade secrets law, First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Boston: ACM Press, pp. 60–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E.L. and Friedman, M.T. 1995. Detecting change in legal concepts. In: Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-95). College Park, MD: ACM Press, pp. 127–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salton, G. 1989. Automatic Text Processing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C. and Abelson, R.P. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C. 1980. Language and memory, Cognitive Science 4(3): 243–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C. 1982. Dynamic memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C. 1986. Explanation patterns. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C. and Leake, D.B. 1989. Creativity and learning in a case-based explainer, Artificial Intelligence 40: 353–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C. 1990. Tell me a story – a new look at real and artificial memory. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C., Kass, A., and Riesbeck, C.K. (eds.) 1994. Inside case-based explanation, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schild, U.J. 1992. Expert Systems and Case Law. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, L.K. and Hwang, C.E. 1989. An episodic knowledge representation for narrative texts, First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Toronto, Canada, pp. 444–458.

  • Schweighofer, E., Winiwarter, W., and Merkl, D. 1995. Information filtering: The computation of similarities in large corpora of legal texts. In: Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-95). College Park, MD: ACM Press, pp. 119–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sergot, M.J. 1991. The representation of law in computer programs. In T. Bench-Capon (ed.), Knowledge-based systems and legal applications. London: Academic Press, pp. 3–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapira, M. 1990. Computerized decision technology in social service, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 10, 138–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon E. and Gaes, G. 1989. ASSYST – computer support for guideline sentencing, Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-89). Vancouver: ACM Press, pp. 195–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skalak, D.B. and Rissland, E.L. 1992. Arguments and Cases, Artificial Intelligence and Law 1, 3–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J.C., Gelbart, D., MacCrimmon, K., Atherton, B., McClean, J., Shinehoft, M., and Quintana, L. 1995. Artificial intelligence and legal discourse: The flexlaw legal text management system, Artificial Intelligence and Law 3(1–2): 55–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sowa, J.F. 1984. Conceptual structures: Information processing in mind and machine. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, R. 1987. Expert systems in law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D.A. 1979. Principles of sentencing. London: Heinemann, 2nd ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D.A. 1982. Current sentencing practice. London: Sweet and Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. 1993. Sentencing Commissions and their Guidelines. In M. Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice – A Review of Research. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 17: 137–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. 1993a. The failure of the U.S. Sentencing Commission's guidelines, Crime and Delinquency 131.

  • Toulmin, S.E. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turtle, H. 1995. Text retrieval in the legal world, Artificial Intelligence and Law 3(1–2), 5–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. 1977. Features of similarity, Psychological Review 84(4), 327–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Noortwijk, C., Piepers, P.A.W., van der Wees, J.G.L., and De Mulder, R.V. 1991. The JURICAS system: New applications and future developments. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-91). Oxford: ACM Press, pp. 201–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hirsch, A. 1992. The Swedish Sentencing Law. In A. von Hirsch and A. Ashworth (eds.), Principled Sentencing, Boston: Northeastern University Press, pp. 292–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hirsch, A. and Ashworth, A. 1992. Principled Sentencing. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hirsch, A. 1993. Censure and Sanctions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherburn, D., Crettenden, I., Bray, R., and Poletti, P. 1988. New South Wales sentencing information system. New South Wales: Judicial Commission of New South Wales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellbank, M. 1983. A review of knowledge acquisition techniques for expert systems. Ipswich: British Telecom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, L.T., Kress, J.M., Gottfredson, D.M., Calpin, J.C., and Gelman, A.M. 1978. Sentencing guidelines: Structuring judicial discretion. Washington D.C.: United States Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. 1996. Personal communication.

  • Zeleznikow, J. and Hunter, D. 1994. Building Intelligent Legal Information Systems. Deventer, the Netherlands: Computer/Law Series, KIuwer Law and Taxation Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Criminal Sentencing and Intelligent Decision Support. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6, 151–202 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008236719573

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008236719573

Keywords

Search

Navigation