A computational model for trial reasoning

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to describe a computational model for legal reasoning in criminal law (i.e. trial reasoning). This logic-programming based model contains seven key components: facts of a new case, old cases, domain knowledge, meta rules, similarity matching relations, various implications, and two explicit agents, the plaintiff and the defendant, with opposing goals and reasoning strategies. The argumentation process in this model can be likened to a two-agent game. One agent puts forward an argument. The other agent recognizes the situation, generates candidates to refute the claim, and selects the best one for the next move. The game ends when any one agent can no longer make a move. Certain debate strategies of this model are illustrated in this paper with examples. In addition, the computational model presented has been used in the design and development of HELIC-II - a parallel knowledge-based system for trial reasoning.

REFERENCES

• Allen 84: James F. Allen, Towards a general theory of action and time, Artificial Intelligence, v.23 n.2, p.123-154, July 1984 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(84)90008-0]
• Ashley 90: K. D. Ashley, "Modeling Legal Debate," MIT Press, 1990.
• Carnap 58: R. Carnap, Introduction to symbolic logic and its applications, Dover publications, 1958.
• Nitta et al. 92: Katsumi Nitta , Yoshihisa Ohtake , Shigeru Maeda , Masayuki Ono , Hiroshi Ohsaki , Kiyokazu Sakane, HELIC-II: legal reasoning system on the parallel inference machine, Selected papers of international conference on Fifth generation computer systems 92, p.423-448, July 1993, Tokyo, Japan
• Rissland et al. 87: E. L. Rissland , K. D. Ashley, A case-based system for trade secrets law, Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.60-66, May 27-29, 1997, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/41735.41743]
• Rissland et al. 89: E. L. Rissland , D. B. Skalak, Interpreting statutory predicates, Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.46-53, May 1989, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/74014.74021]
• Sartor 91: Giovanni Sartor, The structure of norm conditions and nonmonotonic reasoning in law, Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.155-164, May 1991, Oxford, England [doi>10.1145/112646.112665]
• Branting 1989: L. K. Branting, Representing and reusing explanations of legal precedents, Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.103-110, May 1989, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/74014.74029]
• Sanders 1991: Kathryn E. Sanders, Representing and reasoning about open-textured predicates, Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.137-144, May 1991, Oxford, England [doi>10.1145/112646.112663]
• Ueda and Chikayama 90: K. Ueda , T. C. Chikayama, Design of the kernel language for the parallel inference machine, The Computer Journal, v.33 n.6, p.494-500, Dec. 1990 [doi>10.1093/comjnl/33.6.494]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.1 Applications and Expert Systems
          Subjects: Law

Additional Classification:
  F. Theory of Computation
  F.4 MATHEMATICAL LOGIC AND FORMAL LANGUAGES
      F.4.1 Mathematical Logic
          Subjects: Logic and constraint programming

  J. Computer Applications
  J.1 ADMINISTRATIVE DATA PROCESSING
      Subjects: Law

General Terms:
Algorithms, Design, Legal Aspects