Legal Reasoning and Argumentation

Wigmore thought that there was a science of proof underlying legal reasoning that could be displayed in any given case as a graphic sequence of argumentation from the evidence in the case leading to the ultimate probandum. Argumentation technology has now vindicated this approach by providing useful qualitative methods that can be applied to identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the pro and con arguments put forward by both sides in a trial. In this chapter, it is shown how to apply argumentation schemes, such as argument from witness testimony, using argument diagrams applied to typical sequences of evidence-based legal reasoning in which there is a successive refinement of arguments displayed as the evidence comes into a case. It is shown how argument from applying rules to cases, teleological (goal-directed reasoning), argument from expert witness testimony, and abductive reasoning (represented as inference to the best explanation) are centrally important for this purpose.

[1]  Douglas Walton,et al.  What is Reasoning? What Is an Argument? , 1990 .

[2]  Kevin D. Ashley.  Arguing by Analogy in Law: A Case-Based Model , 1988 .

[3]  Henry Prakken,et al.  AI & Law, Logic and Argument Schemes , 2005 .

[4]  J. Wigmore,et al.  Evidence in Trials at Common Law , 2011 .

[5]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  Law, learning and representation , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Emily M. Calhoun.  Thinking Like a Lawyer , 1994 .

[7]  A. Lodder.  DiaLaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation , 1999 .

[8]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy , 2010, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[9]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Proof Burdens and Standards , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[10]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Are Some Modus Ponens Arguments Deductively Invalid , 2001 .

[11]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[12]  M. Guarini,et al.  Resources for Research on Analogy: A Multi-disciplinary Guide , 2009 .

[13]  Lloyd L. Weinreb.  Legal Reason: Frontmatter , 2005 .

[14]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[15]  David Miers,et al.  How to Do Things with Rules , 1977 .

[16]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  On obligations and normative ability: Towards a logical analysis of the social contract , 2005, J. Appl. Log..

[17]  Lloyd L. Weinreb.  Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument , 2005 .

[18]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Witness testimony evidence - argumentation, artificial intelligence, and law , 2007 .

[19]  D. Walton,et al.  Argument from Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories , 2009, Philosophy & Rhetoric.

[20]  Floris Bex.  Analysing Stories Using Schemes , 2016 .

[21]  Kevin D. Ashley.  Ontological requirements for analogical, teleological, and hypothetical legal reasoning , 2009, ICAIL.

[22]  D. Walton,et al.  Commitment In Dialogue , 1995 .

[23]  John R. Josephson,et al.  Abductive inference : computation, philosophy, technology , 1994 .

[24]  Lloyd L. Weinreb.  Legal Reason: Index , 2005 .

[25]  Kevin D. Ashley.  CASE-BASED REASONING , 2006 .

[26]  S. Brewer,et al.  Exemplary Reasoning: Semantics, Pragmatics, and the Rational Force of Legal Argument by Analogy , 1996 .

[27]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Arguments, Values and Baseballs: Representation of Popov v. Hayashi , 2007, JURIX.

[28]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Representing Popov v Hayashi with dimensions and factors , 2012, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[29]  Edward Hirsch Levi,et al.  An Introduction to Legal Reasoning , 1950 .

[30]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[31]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Critical questions in computational models of legal argument , 2005 .

[32]  N. Pennington,et al.  The story model for juror decision making , 1993 .

[33]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argument Schemes for Legal Case-based Reasoning , 2007, JURIX.

[34]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming: Volume 3: Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning , 1994 .

[35]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Arguing about cases as practical reasoning , 2005, ICAIL '05.

[36]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Computational Representation of Practical Argument , 2006, Synthese.

[37]  Henry Prakken,et al.  DOI: 10.1017/S000000000000000 Printed in the United Kingdom Formal systems for persuasion dialogue , 2022 .

[38]  John C. Gottfried,et al.  Case comment—United States v. Copeland, 369 F. Supp. 2d 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2005): A Collateral Attack on the Legal Maxim That Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Is Unquantifiable? , 2007 .

[39]  G. Sartor.  Legal Reasoning: A Cognitive Approach to Law , 2005 .

[40]  G. Sartor,et al.  A logical analysis of burdens of proof , 2009 .

[41]  Bart Verheij.  Legal decision making as dialectical theory construction with argumentation schemes , 2001, ICAIL '01.

[42]  Peter Tillers,et al.  Webs of Things in the Mind: A New Science of Evidence , 1989 .

[43]  Henry Prakken,et al.  The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[44]  H. Hart.  XI.—The Ascription of Responsibility and Rights , 1949 .