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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, T. J. (1999). On Generalisations I: A Preliminary Exploration. South Texas Law Review, 455–481.
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.
Bex, F. J. (2003). Formalising evidential reasoning. Student Paper Cognitive Artificial Intelligence, Utrecht University.
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.
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.
Hage, J. C. (1996). A Theory of Legal Reasoning and a Logic to Match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 199–273.
Hastings, A. C. (1963). A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Ph. D. Diss., Evanston, IL.
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.
Jøsang, A. and Bondi, V. A. (2000). Legal Reasoning With Subjective Logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8: 289–315.
Kadane, J. B. and Schum, D. A. (1996). A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence. John Wiley & Sons: New York.
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.
Kienpointner, M. (1992). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Fromman-Holzboog: Stuttgart.
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.
Krause, P., Ambler, S. Elvang-Gøransson, M. and Fox, J. (1995). A logic of Argumentation for Reasoning Under Uncertainty. Computational Intelligence 11: 113–131.
Lempert, R. (1986). The New Evidence Scholarship: Analyzing the Process of Proof. Boston University Law Review 66: 439–477.
Loui, R. P. and Norman, J. (1995). Rationales and Argument Moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law 3: 159–189.
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.
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.
Malsch, M. and Nijboer, J. F. (eds.) (1999). Complex Cases. Perspectives on the Netherlands Criminal Justice System, Thela Thesis: Amsterdam.
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.
Perelman, Ch. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric (La Nouvelle Rhetorique). University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame.
Pollock, J. L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11: 481–518.
Pollock, J. L. (1995). Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Pollock, J. L. (1998). Perceiving and Reasoning About a Changing World. Computational Intelligence 14: 498–562.
Prakken, H. (2004). Analysing Reasoning About Evidence With Formal Models of Argumentation. Law, Probability and Risk 3: 33–50.
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.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 331–368.
Reed, C. A. and Walton, D. N. (2001). Applications of Argumentation Schemes. Proceedings of the 4th OSSA Conference. Ontario.
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/]
Schum, D. A. (1994). The Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning. John Wiley and Sons: New York.
Schum, D. A. (2001). Alternative Views of Argument Construction From a Mass of Evidence. Cardozo Law Review 22: 1461–1502.
Schum, D. A. and Tillers, P. (1991). Marshalling Evidence for Adversary Litigation. Cardozo Law Review 13: 657–704.
Tribe, L. (1971). Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process. Harvard Law Review 84: 1329–1393.
Twining, W. (1999). Necessary but dangerous? Generalisations and narrative in argumentation about ''facts ''in criminal process. In Malsch and Nijboer (ed.), 69–98.
Verheij, B. (1996). Rules, Reasons, Arguments. Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Maastricht.
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.
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.
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.
Wagenaar, W. A., Koppen, P. J. van, and Crombag, H. (1993). Anchored Narratives. The Psychology of Criminal Evidence. St. Martin 's Press: New York.
Walton, D. N. (1996a). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, N. J.: Erlbaum.
Walton, D. N. (1996b). Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. University of Toronto Press: Toronto.
Walton, D. N. (1997). Appeal to Expert Opinion. Penn State Press: University Park.
Wigmore, J. H. (1931). The Principles of Judicial Proof, 2nd ed. Little, Brown and Company: Boston.
Young, W. and Kaiser, D. (1985). Postmortem: New Evidence in the Case of Sacco and Vanzetti. University of Massachusetts Press: Amherst.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C. et al. Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11, 125–165 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046007.11806.9a
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046007.11806.9a