Cargando…

An Argumentation‐Based Analysis of the Simonshaven Case

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Prakken, Henry
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7687184/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30873711
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tops.12418
_version_ 1783613475836133376
author Prakken, Henry
author_facet Prakken, Henry
author_sort Prakken, Henry
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7687184
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76871842020-12-05 An Argumentation‐Based Analysis of the Simonshaven Case Prakken, Henry Top Cogn Sci Models of Rational Proof in Criminal Law Editors: Henry Prakken, Floris Bex and Anne Ruth Mackor 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-03-14 2020-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7687184/ /pubmed/30873711 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tops.12418 Text en © 2019 The Author. Topics in Cognitive Science published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Cognitive Science Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Models of Rational Proof in Criminal Law Editors: Henry Prakken, Floris Bex and Anne Ruth Mackor
Prakken, Henry
An Argumentation‐Based Analysis of the Simonshaven Case
title An Argumentation‐Based Analysis of the Simonshaven Case
title_full An Argumentation‐Based Analysis of the Simonshaven Case
title_fullStr An Argumentation‐Based Analysis of the Simonshaven Case
title_full_unstemmed An Argumentation‐Based Analysis of the Simonshaven Case
title_short An Argumentation‐Based Analysis of the Simonshaven Case
title_sort argumentation‐based analysis of the simonshaven case
topic Models of Rational Proof in Criminal Law Editors: Henry Prakken, Floris Bex and Anne Ruth Mackor
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7687184/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30873711
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tops.12418
work_keys_str_mv AT prakkenhenry anargumentationbasedanalysisofthesimonshavencase
AT prakkenhenry argumentationbasedanalysisofthesimonshavencase