Modelling judicial context in argumentation frameworks

Adam Wyner, Trevor Bench-Capon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Much work using argumentation frameworks (AFs) treats arguments as entirely abstract, related by a uniform attack relation that always succeeds unless the attacker can itself be defeated. However, this does not seem adequate for legal argumentation. Some proposals have suggested regulating attack relations using preferences or values on arguments and that filter the attack relation, so that, depending on the audience addressed, some attacks fail and so can be removed from the framework. This does not, however, capture a central feature of legal reasoning: how a decision with respect to the same facts and legal reasoning varies as the judicial context varies. Nor does it capture related context-dependent features of legal reasoning, such as how an audience can prefer or value an argument, yet be constrained by precedent or authority not to accept it. Nor does it explain how certain types of attack may not be allowed in a particular procedural context. For this reason, evaluation of the status of arguments within a given framework must be allowed to depend not only on the attack relations along with the preference or value of arguments, but also on the nature of the attacks and the context in which they are made. We present a means to represent these features, enabling us to account for a number of factors currently considered to be beyond the remit of formal AFs. We give several examples of the use of approach including: appealing a case, overruling a precedent and rehearing of a case as a civil rather than criminal proceeding.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)941-968
Number of pages28
JournalJournal of Logic and Computation
Volume19
Issue number6
Early online date26 Mar 2009
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2009

Fingerprint

Context Modeling
Argumentation
Attack
Reasoning
Vary
Preference Relation
Framework
Modeling
Filter
Context
Dependent
Evaluation

Keywords

  • argumentation
  • legal reasoning
  • precedent
  • precedence
  • procedure

Cite this

Modelling judicial context in argumentation frameworks. / Wyner, Adam; Bench-Capon, Trevor.

In: Journal of Logic and Computation, Vol. 19, No. 6, 12.2009, p. 941-968.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wyner, Adam ; Bench-Capon, Trevor. / Modelling judicial context in argumentation frameworks. In: Journal of Logic and Computation. 2009 ; Vol. 19, No. 6. pp. 941-968.
@article{96fa64d8c18f4fe7925417b0293182ba,
title = "Modelling judicial context in argumentation frameworks",
abstract = "Much work using argumentation frameworks (AFs) treats arguments as entirely abstract, related by a uniform attack relation that always succeeds unless the attacker can itself be defeated. However, this does not seem adequate for legal argumentation. Some proposals have suggested regulating attack relations using preferences or values on arguments and that filter the attack relation, so that, depending on the audience addressed, some attacks fail and so can be removed from the framework. This does not, however, capture a central feature of legal reasoning: how a decision with respect to the same facts and legal reasoning varies as the judicial context varies. Nor does it capture related context-dependent features of legal reasoning, such as how an audience can prefer or value an argument, yet be constrained by precedent or authority not to accept it. Nor does it explain how certain types of attack may not be allowed in a particular procedural context. For this reason, evaluation of the status of arguments within a given framework must be allowed to depend not only on the attack relations along with the preference or value of arguments, but also on the nature of the attacks and the context in which they are made. We present a means to represent these features, enabling us to account for a number of factors currently considered to be beyond the remit of formal AFs. We give several examples of the use of approach including: appealing a case, overruling a precedent and rehearing of a case as a civil rather than criminal proceeding.",
keywords = "argumentation, legal reasoning, precedent, precedence, procedure",
author = "Adam Wyner and Trevor Bench-Capon",
year = "2009",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1093/logcom/exp009",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "941--968",
journal = "Journal of Logic and Computation",
issn = "0955-792X",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Modelling judicial context in argumentation frameworks

AU - Wyner, Adam

AU - Bench-Capon, Trevor

PY - 2009/12

Y1 - 2009/12

N2 - Much work using argumentation frameworks (AFs) treats arguments as entirely abstract, related by a uniform attack relation that always succeeds unless the attacker can itself be defeated. However, this does not seem adequate for legal argumentation. Some proposals have suggested regulating attack relations using preferences or values on arguments and that filter the attack relation, so that, depending on the audience addressed, some attacks fail and so can be removed from the framework. This does not, however, capture a central feature of legal reasoning: how a decision with respect to the same facts and legal reasoning varies as the judicial context varies. Nor does it capture related context-dependent features of legal reasoning, such as how an audience can prefer or value an argument, yet be constrained by precedent or authority not to accept it. Nor does it explain how certain types of attack may not be allowed in a particular procedural context. For this reason, evaluation of the status of arguments within a given framework must be allowed to depend not only on the attack relations along with the preference or value of arguments, but also on the nature of the attacks and the context in which they are made. We present a means to represent these features, enabling us to account for a number of factors currently considered to be beyond the remit of formal AFs. We give several examples of the use of approach including: appealing a case, overruling a precedent and rehearing of a case as a civil rather than criminal proceeding.

AB - Much work using argumentation frameworks (AFs) treats arguments as entirely abstract, related by a uniform attack relation that always succeeds unless the attacker can itself be defeated. However, this does not seem adequate for legal argumentation. Some proposals have suggested regulating attack relations using preferences or values on arguments and that filter the attack relation, so that, depending on the audience addressed, some attacks fail and so can be removed from the framework. This does not, however, capture a central feature of legal reasoning: how a decision with respect to the same facts and legal reasoning varies as the judicial context varies. Nor does it capture related context-dependent features of legal reasoning, such as how an audience can prefer or value an argument, yet be constrained by precedent or authority not to accept it. Nor does it explain how certain types of attack may not be allowed in a particular procedural context. For this reason, evaluation of the status of arguments within a given framework must be allowed to depend not only on the attack relations along with the preference or value of arguments, but also on the nature of the attacks and the context in which they are made. We present a means to represent these features, enabling us to account for a number of factors currently considered to be beyond the remit of formal AFs. We give several examples of the use of approach including: appealing a case, overruling a precedent and rehearing of a case as a civil rather than criminal proceeding.

KW - argumentation

KW - legal reasoning

KW - precedent

KW - precedence

KW - procedure

U2 - 10.1093/logcom/exp009

DO - 10.1093/logcom/exp009

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 941

EP - 968

JO - Journal of Logic and Computation

JF - Journal of Logic and Computation

SN - 0955-792X

IS - 6

ER -