Dialogues about the burden of proof

ABSTRACT

This paper analyses the phenomenon of a shift of the burden of proof in legal persuasion dialogues. Some sample dialogues are analysed of types of situations where such a shift may occur, viz. reasoning with defeasible rules, reasoning with argumentation schemes and reasoning with mere presumptions. It is argued that whether a shift in the burden of proof occurs can itself become the subject of dispute and it is shown how a dialogue game protocol for persuasion can be extended to let it regulate persuasion dialogues about the burden of proof. It is also shown that dialogues about the burden of proof are often implicitly about the precise form of the rules used in an argument.

REFERENCES

• 1: J. Barwise and L. Moss. Vicious Circles. Number 60 in CSLI Lecture Notes. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 1996.
• 2: T. J. M. Bench-Capon, T. Geldard, and P. H. Leng. A method for the computational modelling of dialectical argument with dialogue games. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 8:233--254, 2000.
• 3: F. J. Bex and H. Prakken. Reinterpreting arguments in dialogue: an application to evidential reasoning. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2004: The Seventeenth Annual Conference, pages 119--129, Amsterdam etc, 2004. IOS Press.
• 4: Floris Bex , Henry Prakken , Chris Reed , Douglas Walton, Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.11 n.2-3, p.125-165, January 2003 [doi>10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046007.11806.9a]
• 5: Thomas F. Gordon, Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 1995
• 6: Katie Greenwood , Trevor Bench Capon , Peter McBurney, Towards a computational account of persuasion in law, Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, June 24-28, 2003, Scotland, United Kingdom [doi>10.1145/1047788.1047792]
• 7: Ronald E. Leenes, Burden of proof in dialogue games and Dutch civil procedure, Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.109-118, May 2001, St. Louis, Missouri, United States [doi>10.1145/383535.383549]
• 8: A. R. Lodder. DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Law and Philosophy Library. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1999.
• 9: R. P. Loui and J. Norman. Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3:159--189, 1995.
• 10: J. D. Mackenzie. Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8:117--133, 1979.
• 11: John L. Pollock, Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for how to Build a Person, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995
• 12: Henry Prakken, On Dialogue Systems with Speech Acts, Arguments, and Counterarguments, Proceedings of the European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, p.224-238, October 02, 2000
• 13: 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]
• 14: H. Prakken. Coherence and flexibility in two-person dialogue games for argumentation. Technical report, Institute of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, 2005.
• 15: H. Prakken, C. Reed, and D. N. Walton. Argumentation schemes and burden of proof. In Proceedings of the ECAI-2004 Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, pages 81--86, 2004.
• 16: G. Sartor. Defeasibility in legal reasoning. In Z. Bankowski, I. White, and U. Hahn, editors, Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning, Law and Philosophy Library, pages 119--157. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1995.
• 17: Bart Verheij, Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.11 n.2-3, p.167-195, January 2003 [doi>10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046008.49443.36]
• 18: Gerard A. W. Vreeswijk, Abstract argumentation systems, Artificial Intelligence, v.90 n.1-2, p.225-279, Feb. 1997 [doi>10.1016/S0004-3702(96)00041-0]
• 19: D. N. Walton. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1996.
• 20: D. N. Walton. Appeal to Expert Opinion. Penn State Press, University Press, 1997.
• 21: Douglas Walton, Is there a burden of questioning?, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.11 n.1, p.1-43, January 2003 [doi>10.1023/B:ARTI.0000013333.96215.a9]
• 22: D. N. Walton and E. C. W. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1995.