Skip to main content

The Meaning and the Mining of Legal Texts

  • Chapter

Abstract

Positive law, inscribed in legal texts, entails an authority not inherent in literary texts, generating legal consequences that can have real effects on a person’s life and liberty. The interpretation of legal texts, necessarily a normative undertaking, resists the mechanical application of rules, though still requiring a measure of predictability, coherence with other relevant legal norms, and compliance with constitutional safeguards. The present proliferation of legal texts on the Internet (codes, statutes, judgements, treaties, doctrinal treatises) renders the selection of relevant texts and cases next to impossible. We may expect that systems to mine these texts to find arguments that support one’s case, as well as expert systems that support the decision-making process of courts, will end up doing much of the work.

Keywords

  • Legal Scholar
  • Legal Reasoning
  • Legal Text
  • Normative Bias
  • Legal Certainty

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1057/9780230371934_8
  • Chapter length: 16 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-0-230-37193-4
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  • Aikenhead, M. (1995), ‘Legal Knowledge-Based Systems: Some Observations on the Future’,Web Journal of Current Legal Issues. http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/articles2/aiken2.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K., and Brüninghaus, S. (2009), ‘Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 17(2): 125–165.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, H. J. (1983), Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (2005), Giving an Account of Oneself, 1st edn (New York: Fordham University Press).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, N. (2010), The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains (New York: W. W.Norton).

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, T. S., et al. (2009), ‘How Not to Read a Million Books’, paper presented at the Seminar on the History of the Book, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 5 March 5 ==2009, available at: http://www3.isrl.illinois.edu/~unsworth/hownot2read.rutgers. html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Citron, C. K. (2007), ‘Technological due process’, Washington University Law Review 85:1249–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R., and Skover, D. (1992), ‘Paratexts’, Stanford Law Review 44: 509–52.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Custers, B. (2004), The Power of Knowledge: Ethical, Legal, and Technological Aspects of Data Mining and Group Profiling in Epidemiology (Nijmegen, NL: Wolf Legal Publishers).

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio, A. R. (2003), Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain (Orlando, FL: Harcourt).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, J. (Spring 2010 Edition) ‘Interpretation and Coherence in Legal Reasoning’, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ spr2010/entries/legal-reas-interpret/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijksterhuis, A., and van Olden, Z. (2006), ‘On the Benefits of Thinking Unconsciously: Unconscious Thought Can Increase Post-Choice Satisfaction’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42: 627–31.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (1982), ‘Law as Interpretation’, Texas Law Review 60: 527–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Dworkin (1991), Law’s Empire (Glasgow: Fontana).

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstein, E. (2005), The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe, 2nd edn (Cambridge/ New York, Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeley M., and Simon, J. (1994), ‘Actuarial Justice: The Emerging New Criminal Law’ in D. Nelken (ed.), The Futures of Criminology (London: Sage), 173–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, S. (1987), ‘Still Wrong after All These Years’, Law and Philosophy 6: 401–18.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Geisler, D. M. (1985), ‘Modern Interpretation Theory and Competitive Forensics: Understanding Hermeneutic Text’, The National Forensic Journal III: 71–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2007), Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious (New York: Viking).

    Google Scholar 

  • Giraud-Carrier, C., and Provost, F. (2005), ‘Toward a Justification of Meta-Learning: Is the No Free Lunch Theorem a Show-Stopper?’ in Proceedings of the ICML Workshop on Meta-Learning (Bonn), 9–16, available at http://dml.cs.byu.edu/~cgc/pubs/ICML2005WS.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, H. P. (2007), Legal Traditions of the World, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover, C., Hachey, B., and Korycinski, C. (2003), ‘Summarising Legal Texts: Sentential Tense and Argumentative Roles’, in Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 03 on Text Summarization Workshop – Volume 5 (Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutwirth, S. (1993), ‘Waarhedenpluralisme, recht en juridische expertsystemen. Een verkenning’, in R. de Corte (ed.), Automatisering van de juridische besluitvorming (Ghent, BE: Mys & Breesch): 125–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harcourt, B. E. (2007), Against Prediction: Profiling, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrandt, M. (2008), ‘A Vision of Ambient Law’, in R. Brownsword and K. Yeung (eds),Regulating Technologies: Legal Futures, Regulatory Frames and Technological Fixes (Oxford: Hart Publishing).

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Hildebrandt (2010), ‘The Indeterminacy of an Emergency: Challenges to Criminal Jurisdiction in Constitutional Democracy’, Criminal Law and Philosophy 4(2), 161–181.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • M. Hildebrandt (2011), ‘Autonomic and Autonomous “Thinking”: Preconditions for Criminal Accountability’, in: M. Hildebrandt and A. Rouvroy, Law, Human Agency and Autonomic Computing. The Philosophy of Law Meets the Philosophy of Technology(Abingdon: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollatz, J. (1999), ‘Analogy Making in Legal Reasoning with Neural Networks and Fuzzy Logic’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 7: 289–301.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, O. W. (1897), ‘The Path of the Law’, Harvard Law Review 10(8): 457–78.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • O.W. Holmes ([1881] 1991), The Common Law (New York: Dover Publications).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2003), ‘Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics’, The American Economic Review 93: 1449–75.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen, H. (2005), Pure Theory of Law (Clark, NJ, Lawbook Exchange).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, D. (2004), ‘The Disenchantment of Logically Formal Legal Rationality, or Max Weber’s Sociology in the Genealogy of the Contemporary Mode of Western Legal Thought’, Hastings Law Journal 555: 1031–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koschaker, P. (1966), Europa und das römische Recht, 4th edn (Munich-Berlin).

    Google Scholar 

  • Leawoods, H. (2000), ‘Gustav Radbruch: An Extraordinary Legal Philosopher’, Journal of Law and Policy 2: 489–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libet, B., Freeman, A., and Sutherland, K. (1999), The Volitional Brain: Towards a Neuroscience of Free Will [Journal of Consciousness Studies] (Thorverton, UK: Imprint Academic).

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkl, D. and Schweighofer, E. (1997), ‘En Route to Data Mining in Legal Text Corpora: Clustering, Neural Computation, and International Treaties’, in Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (IEEE): 465–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merryman, J. H., andPérez-Perdomo, R. (2007), The Civil Law Tradition: An Introduction to the Legal Systems of Europe and Latin America 3rd edn (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Miedema, J. (2009), Slow Reading (Duluth, MN: Litwin Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • Montesquieu, C. de Secondat, Nugent, T., and Prichard, J. V. (1912), The Spirit of the Laws, 2 vols (New York/London: Appleton).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moretti, F. (2005), Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for a Literary History (London:Verso).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S. J. (2008), ‘Determinism and the Death of Folk Psychology: Two Challenges to Responsibility from Neuroscience’, Minnesota Journal of Law Science & Technology 9:1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ong, W. (1982), Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (London/New York: Methuen).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pike, W. A., et al. (2009), ‘The Science of Interaction’, Information Visualization 8: 263–74.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Poulter, S. R. (1993), ‘Science and Toxic Torts: Is There a Rational Solution to the Problem Of Causation?’ High Technology Law Journal 7: 189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radbruch, G. (1950), Rechtsphilosophie, Erik Wolf, ed. (Stuttgart: Koehler).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P., and Thompson, J. B. (1981), Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action, and Interpretation (Cambridge, UK/New York/Paris: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Salas, D. (1992), Du procès pénal. Eléments pour une théorie interdisciplinaire du procès (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, C. (2005), Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sculley, D., and Pasanek, B. M. (2008), ‘Meaning and Mining: The Impact of Implicit Assumptions in Data Mining for the Humanities’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 23(4): 409–24.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Solum, L. B. (1992) ‘Legal personhood for artificial intelligences’, North Carolina Law Review 70: 1231–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (1995), ‘To Follow a Rule’ in idem, Philosophical Arguments (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 165–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulen, T. S. (2002), ‘A Nobel Prize in Legal Science: Theory, Empirical Work, and the Scientific Method in the Study of Law’, University of Illinois Law Review: 875—920.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, J. B. (1990), Justice as Translation: An Essay in Cultural and Legal Criticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vismann, C., and Winthrop-Young, G. (2008), Files: Law and Media Technology (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L., et al. (2009), Philosophical Investigations (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2012 Mireille Hildebrandt

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hildebrandt, M. (2012). The Meaning and the Mining of Legal Texts. In: Berry, D.M. (eds) Understanding Digital Humanities. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230371934_8

Download citation