Voluntary Manslaughter? A Case Study with Meta-Argumentation with Supports

In a criminal case, the judge’s decision making often involves proving, beyond any reasonable doubt, the defendant’s intention to commit a crime from material vidence. A valid decision should be supported by some material evidence, and neither the material evidence itself nor the support that it gives to the conclusion should be invalidated by any other material evidence. Luckily, this sounds a familiar topic in abstract argumentation with supports. We describe an argumentation theory, which roughly corresponds to the tradition of evidential support, but which provides a meta-argumentation (or extended argumentation) framework where an argument can attack/support other argumentation components. We model our example of intention-to-kill in the theory.

[1]  Guido Governatori,et al.  A Defeasible Logic of Policy-Based Intention , 2002, Australian Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

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

[3]  Martin Caminada,et al.  On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[4]  H. Prakken.  Analysing reasoning about evidence with formal models of argumentation , 2004 .

[5]  Farid Nouioua,et al.  Argumentation Frameworks with Necessities , 2011, SUM.

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

[7]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: Towards a better understanding , 2011, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[8]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Metalevel argumentation , 2011, J. Log. Comput..

[9]  Serena Villata,et al.  Support in Abstract Argumentation , 2010, COMMA.

[10]  C. Cayrol,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks , 2005, ECSQARU.

[11]  Ken Satoh,et al.  Balancing Rationality and Utility in Logic-Based Argumentation with Classical Logic Sentences and Belief Contraction , 2016, PRIMA.

[12]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Did he jump or was he pushed? , 2009, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[13]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  Dealing with Generic Contrariness in Structured Argumentation , 2015, IJCAI.

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

[15]  Guido Governatori,et al.  A Defeasible Logic of Policy-Based Intention , 2003 .

[16]  Farid Nouioua,et al.  Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks with Specialized Supports , 2010, 2010 22nd IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence.

[17]  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..

[18]  Dov M. Gabbay.  Semantics for Higher Level Attacks in Extended Argumentation Frames Part 1: Overview , 2009, Stud Logica.

[19]  Guido Governatori,et al.  BIO logical agents: Norms, beliefs, intentions in defeasible logic , 2008, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[20]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence , 2010, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[21]  Henry Prakken,et al.  An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments , 2010, Argument Comput..

[22]  Chris Reed,et al.  Moving Between Argumentation Frameworks , 2010, COMMA.

[23]  Simon Parsons,et al.  A Generalization of Dung's Abstract Framework for Argumentation: Arguing with Sets of Attacking Arguments , 2006, ArgMAS.