Argument Schemes for Legal Case-based Reasoning
نویسندگان
چکیده
In this paper we use the notion of argument schemes to analyse some leading approaches to case-based reasoning in Law. We identify a set of argument schemes that can express the argument provided by such systems and draw attention to some important differences between the various approaches.
منابع مشابه
The Dialectics of Case Comparison: a Formal Reconstruction
This paper is about the dialectics of case comparison as it unfolds in legal case-based reasoning, and its aim is to provide a representation of the phenomenon in formal terms. This is done by formalising argument moves in case comparison concisely in argument schemes, and specifying attack relations between the arguments and their corresponding counterarguments. A feature that is new in resear...
متن کاملHybrid Reasoning with Argumentation Schemes
Practical reasoning typically requires a variety of argumentation schemes to be used together to solve problems and make decisions. For example, a legal case may raise issues requiring argument from precedent cases, rules, policy goals, moral principles, jurisprudential doctrine, social values and evidence. We present an extensible software architecture which allows diverse computational models...
متن کاملCapturing Critical Questions in Bayesian Network Fragments
Legal reasoning with evidence can be a challenging task. We study the relation between two formal approaches that can aid the construction of legal proof: argumentation and Bayesian networks (BNs). Argument schemes are used to describe recurring patterns in argumentation. Critical questions for many argument schemes have been identified. Due to the increased use of statistical forensic evidence...
متن کاملArgumentation Schemes for Reasoning about Factors with Dimensions
In previous work we presented argumentation schemes to capture the CATO and value based theory construction approaches to reasoning with legal cases with factors. We formalised the schemes with ASPIC+, a formal representation of instantiated argumentation. In ASPIC+ the premises of a scheme may either be a factor provided in a knowledge base or established using a further argumentation scheme. ...
متن کاملCommon Knowledge in Legal Reasoning about Evidence
It is shown how tools of argument analysis currently being developed in artificial intelligence can be applied to legal judgments about evidence based on common knowledge. Chains of reasoning containing generalizations and implicit premises that express common knowledge are modeled using argument diagrams and argumentation schemes. A controversial thesis is argued for. It is the thesis that suc...
متن کامل