Modelling last-act attempted crime in criminal law

ABSTRACT In the court of law, a person can be punished for attempting to commit a crime. An open issue in the study of Artificial Intelligence and Law is whether the law of attempts could be formally modelled. There are distinct legal rules for determining attempted crime whereas the last-act rule (also called proximity rule) represents the strictest approach. In this paper, we provide a formal model of the last-act rule using structured argumentation.

[1]  G. Yaffe,et al.  Criminal Attempts , 2014 .

[2]  PrakkenHenry,et al.  Law and logic , 2015 .

[3]  A. Alexandrova.  The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 1965, Nature.

[4]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines of performance relief , 2009, Argument Comput..

[5]  L. Becker.  Criminal Attempt and the Theory of the Law of Crimes , 1974 .

[6]  Murray Shanahan,et al.  The Event Calculus Explained , 1999, Artificial Intelligence Today.

[7]  J. Horty.  RULES AND REASONS IN THE THEORY OF PRECEDENT , 2011, Legal Theory.

[8]  Giovanni Sartor,et al.  Arguing about causes in law: a semi-formal framework for causal arguments , 2019, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[9]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An Argumentation-Theoretic Foundations for Logic Programming , 1995, J. Log. Program..

[10]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[11]  Chitta Baral,et al.  Reasoning about Intended Actions , 2005, AAAI.

[12]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Reasoning about the Intentions of Agents , 2012, Logic Programs, Norms and Action.

[13]  M. Allen.  Textbook on Criminal Law , 1991 .

[14]  Chitta Baral,et al.  Reasoning agents in dynamic domains , 2000 .

[15]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Law and logic: A review from an argumentation perspective , 2015, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Representing Action and Change by Logic Programs , 1993, J. Log. Program..

[17]  Joseph Y. Halpern.  A Modification of the Halpern-Pearl Definition of Causality , 2015, IJCAI.

[18]  Alexander Artikis,et al.  An Event Calculus for Event Recognition , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[19]  Antonis C. Kakas,et al.  Argumentation and the Event Calculus , 2012, Logic Programs, Norms and Action.

[20]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation , 2006, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An Abstract, Argumentation-Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[22]  Alexander Artikis,et al.  Reactive Reasoning with the Event Calculus , 2015, ArXiv.

[23]  Francesca Toni,et al.  Hybrid argumentation and its properties , 2008, COMMA.

[24]  Emiliano Lorini,et al.  A logic of intention and attempt , 2008, Synthese.

[25]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law , 1997 .

[26]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Representing Actions in Logic Programming and Its Applications in Database Updates , 1993, ICLP.

[27]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  A logic-based calculus of events , 1989, New Generation Computing.

[28]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Arguments, scenarios and probabilities: connections between three normative frameworks for evidential reasoning , 2016 .

[29]  Giovanni Sartor,et al.  Defeasibility in Law , 2018 .

[30]  J. Pearl.  Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference , 2000 .

[31]  G. Fletcher,et al.  Basic Concepts Of Criminal Law , 1998 .

[32]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  Modeling Rational Agents within a BDI-Architecture , 1997, KR.

[33]  Douglas Walton,et al.  The Carneades Argumentation Framework - Using Presumptions and Exceptions to Model Critical Questions , 2006, COMMA.

[34]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Modular Argumentation For Modelling Legal Doctrines in Common Law of Contract , 2008, JURIX.

[35]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument , 1997 .

[36]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[37]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract , 2008, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[38]  Barbara Messing,et al.  An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems , 2002, Künstliche Intell..

[39]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations , 2003, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[40]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Coherence in finite argument systems , 2002, Artif. Intell..

[41]  Alexander Bochman,et al.  Actual Causality in a Logical Setting , 2018, IJCAI.

[42]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Action Languages , 1998, Electron. Trans. Artif. Intell..

[43]  J. Andenaes,et al.  The General Part of the Criminal Law of Norway , 1967 .

[44]  Floris Bex,et al.  Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence - A Formal Hybrid Theory , 2011, Law and philosophy library.

[45]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  Actual Causality , 2016, A Logical Theory of Causality.

[46]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  The modular logic of private international law , 2011, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[47]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Intention is Choice with Commitment , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[48]  J. Hage.  Reasoning with Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic , 1996 .