Argumentation schemes and generalisations in reasoning about evidence

ABSTRACT

This paper studies the modelling of legal reasoning about evidence within general theories of defeasible reasoning and argumentation. In particular, it is studied how Wigmore's method for charting evidence and its use by modern legal evidence scholars can be exploited by modern visualisation software for argumentation, and how a formal account of the method can be given in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. Two notions turn out to be crucial, viz. argumentation schemes and empirical generalisations.

REFERENCES

• 1: Anderson, T. J. (1999), On generalizations I: a preliminary Exploration. South Texas Law Review, Summer 1999, 455--481.
• 2: Bromby, M. C. & 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 T. J. M. Bench-Capon, A. Daskalopulu and R. G. F. Winkels (eds), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, JURIX 2002: The Fifteenth Annual Conference, Amsterdam, IOS Press, 2002, 143--152.
• 3: Chad S. Carr, Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation, Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making, Springer-Verlag, London, 2003
• 4: Jeff Conklin , Michael L. Begeman, gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), v.6 n.4, p.303-331, Oct. 1988 [doi>10.1145/58566.59297]
• 5: Hastings, A. C. (1963), A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation, Evanston, Illinois, Ph.D. Dissertation.
• 6: Jøsang, A. & Bondi, V. A. (2000), Legal reasoning with subjective logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8: 289--315.
• 7: Katzav, J., Rowe, G.W.A. & Reed, C. A. (2003), The Argument Research Corpus. In Working Notes of the Conference on Practical Applications of Linguistic Corpora, PALC-2003
• 8: Keppens, J. & Zeleznikow, J. (2002), On the role of model-based reasoning in decision support in crime investigation. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Law and Technology, Boston, MA, pp. 77--83.
• 9: Kienpointner, M. (1992), Alltagslogik; Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern, Stuttgart: Fromman-Holzboog.
• 10: Ronald P. Loui , Jeff Norman , Joe Altepeter , Dan Pinkard , Dan Craven , Jessica Linsday , Mark Foltz, Progress on Room 5: a testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation, Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.207-214, June 30-July 03, 1997, Melbourne, Australia [doi>10.1145/261618.261655]
• 11: L. S. Lutomski, The design of an attorney's statistical consultant, Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.224-233, May 1989, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/74014.74043]
• 12: Malsch, M. & Nijboer, J. F. (eds.) (1999), Complex Cases. Perspectives on the Netherlands Criminal Justice System, Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
• 13: Leslie Morsek (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, 2001, 689--739.
• 14: Perelman, Ch. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969), The New Rhetoric (La Nouvelle Rhetorique), Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
• 15: Pollock, J. L. (1987), Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11:481--518.
• 16: John L. Pollock, Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for how to Build a Person, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995
• 17: Pollock, J. L. (1998), Perceiving and reasoning about a changing world. Computational Intelligence 14:498--562.
• 18: Henry Prakken, Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure, Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.119-128, May 2001, St. Louis, Missouri, United States [doi>10.1145/383535.383550]
• 19: Prakken, H. & Sartor, G. (1996), A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4:331--368.
• 20: Reed, C. A. & Walton, D. N. (2001), Applications of Argumentation Schemes. Proceedings of the 4th OSSA Conference, Ontario.
• 21: Reed, C. A. & 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 <u>www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/}</u>
• 22: Schum, D. A. (1994), The Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• 23: Schum, D. A. & Tillers, P. (1991), Marshalling evidence for adversary litigation. Cardozo Law Review 13:657--704.
• 24: Twining, W. (1999), Necessary but dangerous? Generalizations and narrative in argumentation about "facts" in criminal process. In Malsch & Nijboer (1999), pp. 69--98.
• 25: Bart Verheij, Automated argument assistance for lawyers, Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.43-52, June 14-17, 1999, Oslo, Norway [doi>10.1145/323706.323714]
• 26: Verheij, B. (2000), Dialectical argumentation as a heuristic for courtroom decision-making. In P. J. van Koppen & N.H.M. Roos (eds.): Rationality, Information and Progress in Law and Psychology. Liber Amoricum Hans F. Crombag. Maastricht: Metajuridica Publications, pp. 203--226.
• 27: Verheij, B. (2002), Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: towards a methodology for the investigation of argumentation schemes. Fifth International Conference on Argumentation (ISSA-2002), Amsterdam.
• 28: Wagenaar, W. A., Koppen, P. J. van & Crombag, H. (1993), Anchored Narratives. The Psychology of Criminal Evidence. New York: St. Martin's Press.
• 29: Walton, D. N. (1996), Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, N. J.: Erlbaum.
• 30: Walton, D. N. (1997), Appeal to Expert Opinion, University Park: Penn State Press.
• 31: Wigmore, J. H. (1931), The Principles of Judicial Proof, 2nd ed., Boston: Little, Brown and Company.