About this book
In this book a theory of reasoning with evidence in the context of criminal cases is developed. The main subject of this study is not the law of evidence but rather the rational process of proof, which involves constructing, testing and justifying scenarios about what happened using evidence and commonsense knowledge. A central theme in the book is the analysis of ones reasoning, so that complex patterns are made more explicit and clear. This analysis uses stories about what happened and arguments to anchor these stories in evidence. Thus the argumentative and the narrative approaches from the research in legal philosophy and legal psychology are combined. Because the book describes its subjects in both an informal and a formal style, it is relevant for scholars in legal philosophy, AI, logic and argumentation theory. The book can also appeal to practitioners in the investigative and legal professions, who are interested in the ways in which they can and should reason with evidence.
Argumentation Artificial Evidence and Law Bank Fraud Bayesian Belief Networks Bennett Cannabis-growing Operation Cause of Death Coherence of Stories Comparing the Alternatives Contradiction Criminal Evidence Defeasible Logic Defeating Arguments Evidence Evidence (Law) Evidence Theorists Evidential Arguments Evidential Reasoning Evidential Support Explaining the Evidence Explanations Facta Explananda Facta Probanda Feldman Hastie Hybrid Hybrid Theory Initial Evaluation Josephson Judicial Proof Justification Kadane Keppens Law Leo de Jager Logic Murder Weapon Murder in Anjum Pennington Police Investigation Process of Proof Protocol Rational Theories Reasoning Sacco and Vanzetti Case Schum Sensitivity Analysis Stories Support System Thagard Trial Wigmore Wigmorean Analysis