Learn More
This paper describes an approach to legal logic based on the formal analysis of argumentation schemes. Argumentation schemes-a notion borrowed from the field 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(More)
Currently there is a revival of the study of dialectical argumentation in the artificial intelligence community. There are good reasons why: First, the notions of argument and counterargument shed new light on nonmonotonic reasoning. Second, the process character of dialectical argumentation inspires new computational techniques. In a recent important(More)
Assumptions are often not considered to be definitely true, but only as prima facie justified. When an assumption is prima facie justified, there can for instance be a reason against it, by which the assumption is not actually justified. The assumption is then said to be defeated. This requires a revision of the standard conception of logical interpretation(More)
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(More)
In the literature on reasoning on the basis of evidence, two traditions exist: one argument-based, and one based on narratives. Recently, we have proposed a hybrid perspective in which argumentation and narratives are combined. This formalized hybrid theory has been tested in a sense-making software prototype for criminal investigators and decision makers.(More)
Solving the first of these two drawbacks has led to a new graphical representation of the arguments, in which argument attacks are shown, and to a change in the argumentation theory, viz. the introduction of a novel notion of an argument, viz. that of a <italic>dialectical</italic> argument. Briefly, a dialectical argument is an argument in which attacks(More)
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(More)
In the present paper, an approach to the formal modeling of legal decision making is proposed. It is presented in reply to a critique of two major existing approaches. The critique reveals topics that these approaches treat confusingly or fail to address at all. The topics concern their philosophical and technical underpinnings, their empirical adequacy and(More)