A new use case for argumentation support tools: supporting discussions of Bayesian analyses of complex criminal cases

In this paper a new use case for legal argumentation support tools is considered: supporting discussions about analyses of complex criminal cases with the help of Bayesian probability theory. By way of a case study, two actual discussions between experts in court cases are analysed on their argumentation structure. In this study the usefulness of several recognised argument schemes is confirmed, a new argument scheme for arguments from statistics are proposed, and an analysis is given of debates between experts about the validity of their arguments. From a practical point of view the case study yields insights into the design of support software for discussions about Bayesian analyses of complex criminal cases.

[1]  Henry Prakken,et al.  General Introduction: Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic , 2009 .

[2]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Argument Schemes for Discussing Bayesian Modellings of Complex Criminal Cases , 2017, JURIX.

[3]  Norman Fenton,et al.  Risk Assessment and Decision Analysis with Bayesian Networks , 2012 .

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

[5]  S. W. van den Braak.  Sensemaking software for crime analysis , 2010 .

[6]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation based tools for policy-making , 2013, ICAIL.

[7]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A method for explaining Bayesian networks for legal evidence with scenarios , 2016, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[8]  Henry Prakken,et al.  On logical specifications of the Argument Interchange Format , 2013, J. Log. Comput..

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

[10]  I. Hacking.  An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic , 2001 .

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

[12]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  HYPO’S legacy: introduction to the virtual special issue , 2017, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[13]  Norman Fenton,et al.  Modelling crime linkage with Bayesian networks. , 2015, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[14]  Michael J. Maher,et al.  Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logic , 2004, J. Log. Comput..

[15]  Norman Fenton,et al.  Avoiding probabilistic reasoning fallacies in legal practice using Bayesian networks , 2011 .

[16]  Niels Pinkwart,et al.  Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art , 2010, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

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

[18]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Reasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks , 2010, COMMA.

[19]  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..

[20]  William Marsh,et al.  Clinical evidence framework for Bayesian networks , 2016, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[21]  Ian Hacking,et al.  An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic: Contents , 2001 .

[22]  Jeroen Keppens.  On modelling non-probabilistic uncertainty in the likelihood ratio approach to evidential reasoning , 2014, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[23]  David A. Lagnado,et al.  Legal idioms: a framework for evidential reasoning , 2013, Argument Comput..

[24]  F Taroni,et al.  The meaning of justified subjectivism and its role in the reconciliation of recent disagreements over forensic probabilism. , 2017, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[25]  Chris Reed,et al.  Argumentation Schemes , 2008 .

[26]  Norman Fenton,et al.  Bayes and the Law. , 2016, Annual review of statistics and its application.

[27]  Floris Bex,et al.  From Arguments to Constraints on a Bayesian Network , 2016, COMMA.