An Argumentation‐Based Analysis of the Simonshaven Case

Abstract In an argumentation approach, legal evidential reasoning is modeled as the construction and attack of “trees of inference” from evidence to conclusions by applying generalizations to evidence or intermediate conclusions. In this paper, an argumentation‐based analysis of the Simonshaven case is given in terms of a logical formalism for argumentation. The formalism combines abstract argumentation frameworks with accounts of the structure of arguments, of the ways they can be attacked and of ways to evaluate conflicting arguments. The purpose of this paper is not to demonstrate or argue that the argumentation approach to modeling legal evidential reasoning is feasible or even preferable but to have a fully worked‐out example that can be used in the comparison with alternative Bayesian or scenario‐based analyses.

[1]  Henry Prakken.  Probabilistic Strength of Arguments with Structure , 2018, KR.

[2]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A two-phase method for extracting explanatory arguments from Bayesian networks , 2017, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

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

[4]  H. Prakken.  On direct and indirect probabilistic reasoning in legal proof , 2014 .

[5]  Henry Prakken,et al.  The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial , 2014, Argument Comput..

[6]  L. Stevens.  Bewijs waarderen. Hoe doen strafrechters dat , 2014 .

[7]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A general account of argumentation with preferences , 2013, Artif. Intell..

[8]  T. Ward.  Review: Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic , 2010 .

[9]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks , 2009, Artif. Intell..

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

[11]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Fundamentals of critical argumentation , 2006, Critical reasoning and argumentation.

[12]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning , 2005, ICAIL '05.

[13]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic , 2003, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

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

[15]  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..

[16]  T. Anderson,et al.  Analysis of evidence : how to do things with facts , 1997 .

[17]  J. Wigmore,et al.  The Principles of Judicial Proof , 1933 .