Cases and Dialectical Arguments - An Approach to Case-Based Reasoning
نویسندگان
چکیده
Case-based reasoning in the law is a reasoning strategy in which legal conclusions are supported by decisions made by judges. If the case at hand is analogous to a settled case, then by judicial authority one can argue that the settled case should be followed. Case-based reasoning is a topic where ontology meets logic since one’s conception of cases determines one’s conception of reasoning with cases. In the paper, it is shown how reasoning with cases can be modelled by comparing the corresponding dialectical arguments. A unique characteristic thereby is the explicit recognition that it is in principle contingent which case features are relevant for case comparison. This contigency gives rise to some typical reasoning patterns. The present work is compared to other existing approaches to reasoning by case comparison, and some work on legal ontologies is briefly discussed regarding the role attributed to cases.
منابع مشابه
Dialectical arguments and case comparison
The basis of legal case-based reasoning is the doctrine of stare decisis: decisions in new cases should follow decisions in similar old cases. This paper takes as a starting point the ‘case comparison’ interpretation of the stare decisis doctrine. In this interpretation one establishes by case comparison which previously decided cases are sufficiently similar to a new case, after which the old ...
متن کاملINTEGRATING CASE-BASED REASONING, KNOWLEDGE-BASED APPROACH AND TSP ALGORITHM FOR MINIMUM TOUR FINDING
Imagine you have traveled to an unfamiliar city. Before you start your daily tour around the city, you need to know a good route. In Network Theory (NT), this is the traveling salesman problem (TSP). A dynamic programming algorithm is often used for solving this problem. However, when the road network of the city is very complicated and dense, which is usually the case, it will take too long fo...
متن کاملComputer-assisted safety argument review - a dialectics approach
There has been increasing use of argument-based approaches in the development of safetycritical systems. Within this approach, a safety case plays a key role in the system development life cycle. The key components in a safety case are safety arguments, which are designated to demonstrate that the system is acceptably safe. Inappropriate reasoning in safety arguments could undermine a system’s ...
متن کاملSolving a Murder Case by Asking Critical Questions: An Approach to Fact-Finding in Terms of Argumentation and Story Schemes
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...
متن کاملReasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks
This paper combines two recent extensions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks in order to define an abstract formalism for reasoning about preferences in structured argumentation frameworks. First, extended argumentation frameworks extend Dung frameworks with attacks on attacks, thus providing an abstract dialectical semantics that accommodates argumentation-based reasoning about prefer...
متن کامل