-
123Solving a Murder Case by Asking Critical Questions: An Approach to Fact-Finding in Terms of Argumentation and Story Schemes (review)Argumentation 26 (3): 325-353. 2012.In this paper, we look at reasoning with evidence and facts in criminal cases. We show how this reasoning may be analysed in a dialectical way by means of critical questions that point to typical sources of doubt. We discuss critical questions about the evidential arguments adduced, about the narrative accounts of the facts considered, and about the way in which the arguments and narratives are connected in an analysis. Our treatment shows how two different types of knowledge, represented as sch…Read more
-
4Douglas Walton, The New Dialectic. Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press (Book Review) (review)Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (4): 305-313. 2001.
-
47An integrated view on rules and principlesArtificial Intelligence and Law 6 (1): 3-26. 1998.In the law, it is generally acknowledged that there are intuitive differences between reasoning with rules and reasoning with principles. For instance, a rule seems to lead directly to its conclusion if its condition is satisfied, while a principle seems to lead merely to a reason for its conclusion. However, the implications of these intuitive differences for the logical status of rules and principles remain controversial.A radical opinion has been put forward by Dworkin (1978). The intuitive d…Read more
-
61Proof with and without probabilitiesArtificial Intelligence and Law 25 (1): 127-154. 2017.Evidential reasoning is hard, and errors can lead to miscarriages of justice with serious consequences. Analytic methods for the correct handling of evidence come in different styles, typically focusing on one of three tools: arguments, scenarios or probabilities. Recent research used Bayesian networks for connecting arguments, scenarios, and probabilities. Well-known issues with Bayesian networks were encountered: More numbers are needed than are available, and there is a risk of misinterpretat…Read more
-
18Book review: The dynamics of judicial proof. Computation, logic, and common sense (review)Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (4): 299-303. 2003.
-
119Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s SchemeArgumentation 19 (3): 347-371. 2005.Toulmin’s scheme for the layout of arguments (1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) represents an influential tool for the analysis of arguments. The scheme enriches the traditional premises-conclusion model of arguments by distinguishing additional elements, like warrant, backing and rebuttal. The present paper contains a formal elaboration of Toulmin’s scheme, and extends it with a treatment of the formal evaluation of Toulmin-style arguments, which Toulmin did not…Read more
-
Accepting the truth of a story about the facts of a criminal caseIn Hendrik Kaptein (ed.), Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic, Ashgate. 2008.
-
56Introduction to the special issue on Artificial Intelligence for JusticeArtificial Intelligence and Law 25 (1): 1-3. 2017.
-
51Building Bayesian networks for legal evidence with narratives: a case study evaluationArtificial Intelligence and Law 22 (4): 375-421. 2014.In a criminal trial, evidence is used to draw conclusions about what happened concerning a supposed crime. Traditionally, the three main approaches to modeling reasoning with evidence are argumentative, narrative and probabilistic approaches. Integrating these three approaches could arguably enhance the communication between an expert and a judge or jury. In previous work, techniques were proposed to represent narratives in a Bayesian network and to use narratives as a basis for systematizing th…Read more
-
112Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic (review)Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3): 167-195. 2003.This paper describes an approach to legal logic based on the formal analysis of argumentation schemes. Argumentation schemes a notion borrowed from the .eld of argumentation theory - are a kind of generalized rules of inference, in the sense that they express that given certain premises a particular conclusion can be drawn. However, argumentation schemes need not concern strict, abstract, necessarily valid patterns of reasoning, but can be defeasible, concrete and contingently valid, i.e., valid…Read more
-
70A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidenceArtificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2): 123-152. 2010.This paper presents a theory of reasoning with evidence in order to determine the facts in a criminal case. The focus is on the process of proof, in which the facts of the case are determined, rather than on related legal issues, such as the admissibility of evidence. In the literature, two approaches to reasoning with evidence can be distinguished, one argument-based and one story-based. In an argument-based approach to reasoning with evidence, the reasons for and against the occurrence of an e…Read more
-
41Henry Prakken (1997). Logical tools for modelling legal argument. A study of defeasible reasoning in lawArtificial Intelligence and Law 8 (1): 35-65. 2000.
-
Building blocks of a legal system: Comments on Summers' Preadvies for the Vereniging voor Wijsbegeerte van het RechtNetherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy 2 200-204. 2005.
-
75Legal stories and the process of proofArtificial Intelligence and Law 21 (3): 253-278. 2013.In this paper, we continue our research on a hybrid narrative-argumentative approach to evidential reasoning in the law by showing the interaction between factual reasoning (providing a proof for ‘what happened’ in a case) and legal reasoning (making a decision based on the proof). First we extend the hybrid theory by making the connection with reasoning towards legal consequences. We then emphasise the role of legal stories (as opposed to the factual stories of the hybrid theory). Legal stories…Read more
-
30Douglas Walton, the new dialectic. Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of toronto press (book review) (review)Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (4): 305-313. 2001.
-
96The Toulmin Model Today: Introduction to the Special Issue on Contemporary Work using Stephen Edelston Toulmin’s Layout of ArgumentsArgumentation 19 (3): 255-258. 2005.
-
34Jumping to ConclusionsIn Luis Farinas del Cerro, Andreas Herzig & Jerome Mengin (eds.), Logics in Artificial Intelligence, Springer. pp. 411--423. 2012.