Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an argument-based logic for reasoning about allocations of the burden of persuasion. The logic extends the system of Prakken (2001), which in turn modified the system of Prakken & Sartor (1996) with the possibility to distribute the burden of proof over both sides in an argument game. First the (2001) system is put in the context of a distinction of three types of proof burdens and it is argued that the proof burdens of that system are in fact burdens of persuasion. Then the (2001) system is modified to allow for defeasible reasoning about allocations of such burdens within the logic. The usefulness of the resulting system is illustrated with applications to real legal cases.

REFERENCES

• 1: T. J. M. Bench-Capon and H. Prakken. Justifying actions by accruing arguments. In P. E. Dunne and T. J. M. Bench-Capon, editors, Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2006, pages 247--258. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2006.
• 2: Phan Minh Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence, v.77 n.2, p.321-357, Sept. 1995 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X]
• 3: T. Gordon and D. Walton. The Carneades argumentation framework - using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In P. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon, editors, Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA-06, pages 195--207, Amsterdam etc., 2006. IOS Press.
• 4: T. F. Gordon, H. Prakken, and D. N. Walton. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 2007. To appear.
• 5: J. C. Hage, Formalizing legal coherence, Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.22-31, May 2001, St. Louis, Missouri, United States [doi>10.1145/383535.383538]
• 6: J. C. Hage. Comparing alternatives in the law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12:181--225, 2004.
• 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: Henry Prakken, Modelling defeasibility in law: logic or procedure?, Fundamenta Informaticae, v.48 n.2-3, p.253-271, November 2001
• 9: H. Prakken. An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10:113--33, 2002.
• 10: Henry Prakken , Chris Reed , Douglas Walton, Dialogues about the burden of proof, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, June 06-11, 2005, Bologna, Italy [doi>10.1145/1165485.1165503]
• 11: H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Rules about rules: Assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:331--68, 1996.
• 12: H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Presumptions and burdens of proof. In T. Van Engers, editor, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, pages 21--30. IOS Press, 2006.
• 13: G. Sartor. A formal logic for legal argumentation. Ratio Juris, 7:212--26, 1994.
• 14: G. Sartor. Defeasibility in legal reasoning. In Z. Bankowski, I. White, and U. Hahn, editors, Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning, pages 119--57. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1995.
• 15: C. Williams. Burdens and standards in civil litigation. Sydney Law Review, 25:165--188, 2003.