Argumentation and standards of proof

ABSTRACT

In this paper we examine some previous AI and Law attempts to characterise standards of proof, and relate these to the notions of acceptability found in argumentation frameworks, an approach which forms the basis of much recent work on argumentation. We distinguish between the justification of facts and the justication of choices relating to the law and its interpretation. Standards of proof most naturally arise in connection with facts, but points of law have analogous degrees of justification.

REFERENCES

• 1: Leila Amgoud , Claudette Cayrol, Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks, Journal of Automated Reasoning, v.29 n.2, p.125-169, 2002 [doi>10.1023/A:1021603608656]
• 2: K. Atkinson and T. Bench-Capon. Zeno revisited: Representation of persuasive argument. In T. van Engers, editor, Legal Knowledge Information Systems. JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, volume 152 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 1--10. IOS Press, 2006.
• 3: Katie Atkinson , Trevor Bench-Capon , Peter McBurney, Arguing about cases as practical reasoning, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, June 06-11, 2005, Bologna, Italy [doi>10.1145/1165485.1165492]
• 4: K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese, 152(2):157--206, 2006.
• 5: T. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):429--48, 2003.
• 6: Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon , Sylvie Doutre , Paul E. Dunne, Audiences in argumentation frameworks, Artificial Intelligence, v.171 n.1, p.42-71, January, 2007 [doi>10.1016/j.artint.2006.10.013]
• 7: T. Bench-Capon and E. L. Rissland. Back to the future: dimensions revisited. In B. Verheij, A. Lodder, R. Loui, and A. Muntjewerff, editors, Legal Knowledge Information Systems. JURIX 2001: The Fourteenth Annual Conference, volume 70 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 41--52. IOS Press, 2001.
• 8: Trevor Bench-Capon , Giovanni Sartor, A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values, Artificial Intelligence, v.150 n.1-2, p.97-143, November 2003 [doi>10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00108-5]
• 9: Donald H. Berman , Carole D. Hafner, Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.50-59, June 15-18, 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/158976.158982]
• 10: 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]
• 11: C. G. Christie. The Notion of an Ideal Audience in Legal Argument. Kluwer Academic Press, 2000.
• 12: 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]
• 13: Arthur M. Farley , Kathleen Freeman, Burden of proof in legal argumentation, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.156-164, May 21-24, 1995, College Park, Maryland, United States [doi>10.1145/222092.222227]
• 14: P. Finkelman. Fugitive baseballs and abandoned property: Who owns the home run ball? Cardozo Law Review, 23(5):1609--1633, 2002.
• 15: Thomas F. Gordon , Nikos Karacapilidis, The Zeno argumentation framework, Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.10-18, June 30-July 03, 1997, Melbourne, Australia [doi>10.1145/261618.261622]
• 16: T. F. Gordon and D. N. Walton. The Carneades argumentation framework: Usuing presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In P. E. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon, editors, Computational Models of Natural Argument, Proceedings of COMMA 2006, volume 144 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 195--207. IOS Press, 2006.
• 17: S. Modgil. Value based argumentation in hierarchical argumentation frameworks. In P. E. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon, editors, Computational Models of Natural Argument, Proceedings of COMMA 2006, volume 144 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 297--308. IOS Press, 2006.
• 18: C. Perelman. Justice, Law, and Argument. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1980.
• 19: C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN, USA, 1969.
• 20: H. Prakken. An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. In J. Breuker, R. Leenes, and R. Winkels, editors, Legal Knowledge Information Systems. JURIX 2000: The Thirteenth Annual Conference, volume 64 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 49--58. IOS Press, 2000.
• 21: 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]
• 22: H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Presumptions and burdens of proof. In T. van Engers, editor, Legal Knowledge Information Systems. JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, volume 152 of Frontiers in AI and Applications, pages 21--30. IOS Press, 2006.
• 23: A. Wyner and T. Bench-Capon. Towards an extensible argumentation system. Technical Report ULCS-07-003, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK, 2007.

INDEX TERMS

Keywords:
argumentation, legal reasoning, purposes, standards of proof