Abstract
The general subject of the book, namely reasoning with evidence to establish the facts in criminal cases. It discusses the background of the research, which is a combination of legal theory, argumentation theory, artificial intelligence and legal psychology, and it introduces the idea of sense-making, structuring complex masses of information so that it can be analysed. The main aim of the book is set as the development of a (formal logical) theory, based on reasoning with stories and arguments, that may serve as the basis for such sense-making.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Examples of rules about the legal validity or admissibility of evidence can be found in the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure (DCCP) and the American Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), respectively .
- 2.
- 3.
The term was coined by Richard Lempert (1986)
- 4.
This term was to my knowledge first used by Twining (2007) . The research on Modified Wigmorean Analysis encompasses a large amount of interesting material on a multitude of different subjects. The “locus classicus” would be Wigmore’s (1931) work . Important new work in this school of thought is the Analysis of Evidence, authored by Anderson , Twining and Schum (2005) . This book, which I have used extensively in the development of my own ideas, contains information on a wide variety of subjects regarding reasoning with evidence and proof. Other seminal work in the tradition of the New Evidence Theory is contained in Rethinking Evidence (Twining, 2006) . Finally, Peter Tiller’s website (Tillers, 2006) can also be used as an invaluable source on (the law of) evidence in the tradition of the New Evidence Theory.
- 5.
Nijboer (2000, p. 28), however, argues that investigation and proof in criminal cases can be characterized as “special forms of empirical investigation and proof” and that Dutch jurists largely agree with a rationalist notion of knowledge.
- 6.
- 7.
Examples are CaseMap (http://www.casesoft.com/casemap/casemap.asp; accessed on 26 July 2010) and Analyst’s Notebook (http://www.i2.co.uk/Products/Analysts_Notebook/default.asp; accessed on 26 July 2010).
- 8.
The increased public nature of decisions in the Netherlands (cf. van Lent, 2008) forces judges to explain their decisions more thourougly and intelligibly.
- 9.
These three aims are adapted from Verheij’s (1996) discussion of the aims of formally modelling argumentation.
- 10.
- 11.
Examples are Araucaria (http://araucaria.computing.dundee.ac.uk; accessed on 26 July 2010) and Rationale (http://rationale.austhink.com; accessed on 26 July 2010). See (Verheij, 2005b; van den Braak, 2010, pp. 35–45) for overviews.
- 12.
- 13.
A notable exception here are Pardo and Allen (2007), who advocate using stories to explain the evidence.
- 14.
In particular legal theory, legal psychology, philosophy, argumentation theory, cognitive modelling and AI.
- 15.
The project is a collaboration between the Centre for Law and ICT (University of Groningen), the department of Artificial Intelligence (University of Groningen) and the Intelligent Systems Group (Utrecht University). For more information, see: http://www.cs.uu.nl/research/projects/evidence/ (last accessed on July 19, 2010).
References
Anderson, T.J., Schum, D.A. and Twining, W.L. (2005) Analysis of Evidence, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ashley, K.D. (1991) Modeling Legal Arguments: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals, MIT Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts).
Bennett, W.L. and Feldman, M.S. (1981) Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom: Justice and Judgment in American Culture, Methuen – Tavistock, London.
Bex, F.J., Braak, S.W. van den, Oostendorp, H. van, Prakken, H., Verheij, B. and Vreeswijk, G. (2007b) Sense – making software for crime investigation: how to combine stories and arguments? Law, Probability and Risk 6, 145–168.
Braak, S.W. van den, Vreeswijk, G. and Prakken, H. (2007) AVERs: An argument visualization tool for representing stories about evidence. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM, New York, NY (New York).
De Poot, C.J., Bokhorst, R.J., Koppen, P.J. van and Muller, E.R. (2004) Rechercheportret – Over Dillemma’s in de Opsporing, Kluwer, Alphen a.d. Rijn.
Hage, J.C. (1996) A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4:3, 199–273.
Kadane, J.B. and Schum, D.A. (1996) A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence, Wiley, New York (New York).
Keppens, J. and Schafer, B. (2006) Knowledge based crime scenario modelling. Expert Systems with Applications 30, 203–222.
Lempert, R. (1986) The new evidence scholarship: analyzing the process of proof. Boston University Law Review 66, 439.
Lent, L. van. (2008) Externe Openbaarheid in Het Strafproces., Dissertation Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Loui, R.P. (1995) Hart’s critics on defeasible concepts and ascriptivism. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 21–30, ACM Press, New York (New York).
Nijboer, J.F. (2000) Strafrechtelijk Bewijsrecht, 4th edition, Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen.
Nijboer, J.F. and Sennef, A. (1999) Justification. In Nijboer, J.F. and Malsch, M. (eds.), Complex Cases: Perspectives on the Netherlands Criminal Justice System, 11–26, Thela Thesis, Amsterdam.
Pardo, M.S. and Allen, R.J. (2007) Juridical proof and the best explanation. Law and Philosophy 27, 223–268. Springer.
Pennington, N. and Hastie, R. (1986) Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 242–258.
Pennington, N. and Hastie, R. (1992) Explaining the evidence: tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62:2, 189–206.
Pennington, N. and Hastie, R. (1993b) The story model for juror decision making. In Hastie, R. (eds.), Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Prakken, H. (1997) Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4:3, 331–368.
Rescher, N. (1977) Dialectics: A Controversy – Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge, State University of New York Press, Albany (New York).
Schum, D.A. (1994) The Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning, Northwestern University Press, Evanston (Illinois).
Schum, D.A. (2005) Narratives in Intelligence Analysis: Necessary but Often Dangerous, Evidence Research, London.
Simon, H.A. (1982) Models of Bounded Rationality, MIT Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts).
Thagard, P. (1989) Explanatory coherence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12:3, 435–502.
Thagard, P. (2004) Causal inference in legal decision making: explanatory coherence vs. bayesian networks. Applied Artificial Intelligence 18:3, 231–249.
Thagard, P. (2005) Testimony, credibility, and explanatory coherence. Erkenntnis 63:3, 295–316.
Tillers, P. (2006) The Dynamic Evidence Page, Accessed 14–5–2009. http://www.tillers.net/Last.
Twining, W.L. (2007) Argumentation, stories and generalizations: a comment. Law, Probability & Risk 6, 169–185.
Twining, W.L. (1994) Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, Northwestern University Press, Evanston (Illinios).
Twining, W.L. (2006) Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Van Gelder, T. (2007) The rationale for rationale. Law, Probability and Risk 6, 23–42.
Verheij, B. (1999) Automated argument assistance for lawyers. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 43–52, ACM New York (New York).
Verheij, B. (2000) Anchored narratives and dialectical argumentation. In Van Koppen, P.J. and Roos, N. (eds.), Rationality, Information and Progress in Law and Psychology: Liber Amicorum Hans F. Crombag, 203–226, Metajuridica Publications, Maastricht.
Verheij, B. (2005b) Virtual Arguments: On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers, T.M.C. Asser Press, Den Haag.
Wagenaar, W.A. and Crombag, H.F.M. (2005) The Popular Policeman and Other Cases: Psychological Perspectives on Legal Evidence, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
Wigmore, J.H. (1931) The Principles of Judicial Proof or the Process of Proof as Given by Logic, Psychology, and General Experience, and Illustrated in Judicial Trials, 2nd edition, Little, Brown and Company, Boston (Massachusetts).
Wagenaar, W.A., Koppen, P.J. van and Crombag, H.F.M. (1993) Anchored Narratives: The Psychology of Criminal Evidence, St. Martin’s Press, New York (New York).
Heuer, R.J. (1999) Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency.
Verheij, B. (1996) Rules, Reasons, Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat, Doctoral dissertation, University of Maastricht.
Verheij, B., Hage, J.C. and Herik, H.J. van den. (1998) An integrated view on rules and principles. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6:1, 3–26.
Bex, F.J., Prakken, H., Reed, C. and Walton, D.N. (2003) Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11, 125–165.
Levitt, T.S. and Laskey, K.B. (2000) Computational inference for evidential reasoning in support of judicial proof. Cardozo Law Review 22, 1691.
Braak, S.W. van den (2010) Sensemaking Software for Crime Analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Intelligent Systems Group, Utrecht University (SIKS Dissertation Series No. 2010–2012).
Hepler, A.B., Dawid, A.P. and Leucari, V. (2007) Object – oriented graphical representations of complex patterns of evidence. Law, Probability and Risk 6, 275–293.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bex, F.J. (2011). Introduction. In: Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 92. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0140-3_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0140-3_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-0139-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-0140-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)