Henry Prakken
ABSTRACT
This article investigates the modelling of reasoning about evidence in legal procedure. To this end, a dialogue game model of the relevant parts of Dutch civil procedure is developed with three players: two adversaries and a judge. The model aims to be both legally realistic and technically well-founded. Legally, the main achievement is a more realistic account of the judge's role in legal procedures than that provided by current models. Technically, the model aims to preserve the features of an earlier-developed framework for two-player argumentative dialogue systems.
- 1.T. Bench-Capon. Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In Legal Knowledge-Based Systems. JURIX: The Eleventh Conference, pages 5-19, Nijmegen, 1998. Gerard Noodt Instituut.]]Google Scholar
- 2.G. Brewka. Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2001. To appear.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- 3.T. Gordon. The Pleadings Game: an exercise in computational dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2:239-292, 1994.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- 4.T. Gordon and N. Karaccapilidis. The Zeno argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference onArtificial Intelligence and Law, pages 10-18, New York, 1997. ACM Press.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 5.J. Hage, R. Leenes, and A. Lodder. Hard cases: a procedural approach. Artificial Intelligence andLaw, 2:113-166, 1994.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 6.H. Jakobovits. On the Theory of Argumentation Frameworks. Doctoral dissertation Free University Brussels, 2000.]]Google Scholar
- 7.R. Leenes. Hercules of Karneades: Hard Cases in Recht en Rechtsinformatica. (Hercules or Karneades: hard cases in law and legal informatics). Twente University Press, Enschede, 1998. (In Dutch).]]Google Scholar
- 8.A. Lodder. DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Law and Philosophy Library. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1999.]]Google Scholar
- 9.R. Loui. Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 14:1-38, 1998.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- 10.R. Loui, J. Norman, J. Alpeter, D. Pinkard, D. Craven, J. Linsday, and M. Foltz. Progress on Room 5: A testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference onArtificial Intelligence and Law, pages 207-214, New York, 1997. ACM Press.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 11.J. MacKenzie. Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8:117-133, 1979.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- 12.J. Pollock. Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 13.H. Prakken. On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. In Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence (JELIA'2000), number 1919 in Springer Lecture Notes in AI, pages 224-238, Berlin, 2000. Springer Verlag.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 14.H. Prakken. Modelling defeasibility inlaw: logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae, 2001. To appear.]]Google Scholar
- 15.H. Prakken. Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese, 127:187-219, 2001.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- 16.H. Prakken and T.F. Gordon. Rules of order for electronic group decision making - a formalization methodology. In J.A.Padget (ed.) Collaboration between Human and Artificial Societies. Coordination and Agent-Based Distributed Computing, Springer Lecture Notes in AI 1624, 246-263, Berlin, 1998.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 17.H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing con icting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:331-368, 1996.]]Google ScholarDigital Library
- 18.G. Vreeswijk. The computational value of debate in defeasible reasoning. Argumentation, 9:305-341, 1995.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- 19.D. Walton and E. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1995.]]Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure
Recommendations
PrOnto: Privacy Ontology for Legal Reasoning
Electronic Government and the Information Systems PerspectiveAbstractThe GDPR (GDPR, REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing ...
Legal modelling and reasoning using institutions
JSAI-isAI'10: Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on New Frontiers in Artificial IntelligenceTo safeguard fairness for all parties involved and proper procedure, actions within a legal context are heavily constrained. Detailed laws determine when actions are permissible and admissible. However, these restrictions do not prevent participants ...
Law Enforcement Authorities' Legal Digital Evidence Gathering: Legal, Integrity and Chain-of-Custody Requirement
EISIC '13: Proceedings of the 2013 European Intelligence and Security Informatics ConferenceWhen carrying out criminal investigations, Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) apply new technology in very effective ways. However at worst, LEAs must perform many stages twice with the help of different technical tools. When investigating the identity of ...
Comments