nach oben

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Erschienen in:

16.03.2019 | Original Research

When expert opinion evidence goes wrong

verfasst von: Douglas Walton

Erschienen in: Artificial Intelligence and Law | Ausgabe 4/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This paper combines three computational argumentation systems to model the sequence of argumentation in a famous murder trial and the appeal procedure that followed. The paper shows how the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion can be built into a testing procedure whereby an argument graph is used to interpret, analyze and evaluate evidence-based natural language argumentation of the kind found in a trial. It is shown how a computational argumentation system can do this by combining argument schemes with argumentation graphs. Frighteningly, it is also shown by this example that when there are potentially confusing conflicting arguments from expert opinion, a jury can only too easily accept a conclusion prematurely before considering critical questions that need to be asked.

Vorheriger Artikel An axiomatic characterization of temporalised belief revision in the law

Nächster Artikel Modelling competing legal arguments using Bayesian model comparison and averaging

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

https://the-line-up.com/the-staircase-documentary.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0901693/.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Peterson_(murder_suspect).

http://araucaria.computing.dundee.ac.uk/doku.php.

https://carneades.github.io/.

Available at https://github.com/carneades.

A blow poke is a long poker built as a hollow metal tube. You blow into the hole at the one end to help the embers in a fireplace spark back into flame without getting burned. At the other end is a prong for moving the logs.

http://owltheory.blog.lemonde.fr/2008/09/05/feathers-flying-in-michael-peterson-case-by-bernie-reeves/.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/special-reports/article10365449.html.

http://carneades.fokus.fraunhofer.de/carneades/.

Anderson T, Twining W (1991) Analysis of evidence: how to do things with facts based on Wigmore’s science of judicial proof. Little Brown & Co, Boston

Bex FJ (2011) Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: a formal hybrid theory. Springer, DordrechtCrossRef

Bex F, Prakken H, Reed C, Walton D (2003) Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalizations. Artificial Intell Law 11(2–3):125–165CrossRef

Findley KA, Scott MS (2006) Multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases. Wisconsin Law Rev 6(19):291–397

Godden DM, Walton D (2006) Argument from expert opinion as legal evidence: critical questions and admissibility criteria of expert testimony in the American legal system. Ratio Juris 19(3):261–286CrossRef

Gordon TF, Walton D (2006) The Carneades argumentation framework: using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) Computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2006, Amsterdam, IOS Press, pp 195–207. http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/06GordonWaltonCarneades.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2019

Gordon TF, Walton D (2016) Formalizing balancing arguments. In: Proceedings of the 2016 conference on computational models of argument (COMMA 2016). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 327–338

Hinton MD (2015) Mizrahi and Seidel: experts in confusion. Informal Log 35(4):539–554CrossRef

Koszowy M, Walton D (2017) Profiles of dialogue for repairing faults in arguments from expert opinion. Log Log Philos 26(1):79–113MathSciNet

Mizrahi M (2013) Why arguments from expert opinion are weak arguments. Informal Log 33(1):57–79CrossRef

Mizrahi M (2016) Why arguments from expert opinion are still weak: a reply to Seidel. Informal Log 36(2):238–252CrossRef

Pennington N, Hastie R (1993) The story model for juror decision making. In: Hastie R (ed) Inside the juror: the psychology of juror decision making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 192–221CrossRef

Peterson SVM (2007) Supreme court of North Carolina (2007). No. 547A06. Decided: November 09, 2007 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-supreme-court/1195408.html. Accessed 28 Feb 2019

Peterson SVM (2011) Motion for appropriate relief in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division. File number 01-CRS-24821

Peterson SV (2013) North Carolina Court of Appeals. NO. COA12-1047. State of North Carolina v. Durham County: No. 01 CRS 24821. Filed 16 July 2013. http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/local/2013/07/16/12667582/NCCOA_Peterson_ruling.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2019

Prakken H, Sartor G (2009) A logical analysis of burdens of proof. In: Kaptein H, Prakken H, Verheij B (eds) Legal evidence and burden of proof. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 223–253

Prakken H, Reed C, Walton D (2004) Argumentation schemes and burden of proof. In: Grasso F, Reed C, Carenini G (eds) Working notes of the 4th international workshop on computational models of natural argument (CMNA2004), Valencia. http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/cmna2004.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2019

Reed CA, Rowe GWA (2004) Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int J AI Tools 13(4):961–980CrossRef

Rudolf (2003) State of North Carolina vs. Michael Iver Petersen, Transcript of Trial, General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, File: 01-CRS-24821, Vol 41, pp 8041–8264, August 11–August 13

Schum DA (1994) Evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning. Wiley, New York

Seidel M (2014) Throwing the baby out with the water: from reasonably scrutinizing authorities to rampant scepticism about expertise. Informal Log 34:192–218CrossRef

Twining W (1985) Theories of evidence: Bentham and Wigmore. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, p 1985

Wagenaar WA, van Koppen PJ, Crombag HFM (1993) Anchored narratives: the psychology of criminal evidence. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire

Walton D (1997) Appeal to expert opinion. Penn State Press, University Park

Walton D, Gordon TF (2005) Critical questions in computational models of legal argument. In: Dunne PE, Capon TB (eds) IAAIL workshop series, international workshop on argumentation in artificial intelligence and law, Nijmegen, Wolf Legal Publishers, 103–111. http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/06GordonWaltonCarneades.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2019

Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

Wigmore JH (1931) The principles of judicial proof, 2nd edn. Little, Brown and Company, Boston

Titel: When expert opinion evidence goes wrong
verfasst von: Douglas Walton
Publikationsdatum: 16.03.2019
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Artificial Intelligence and Law / Ausgabe 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0924-8463
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8382
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-019-09249-w

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"