JURIX 2012: International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems is being held 17-19 December 2012, at Leibniz Center for Law, University of Amsterdam.
The Twitter hashtag for the conference is #jurix2012
Dr. Floris J. Bex of The University of Dundee Argumentation Research Group, and Professor Dr. Douglas Walton of the University of Windsor Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric, have published Burdens and standards of proof for inference to the best explanation: three case studies, forthcoming in Law, Probability, and Risk.
Here is the abstract:
In this article, we provide a formal logical model of evidential reasoning with proof standards and burdens of proof, which enables us to evaluate evidential reasoning by comparing stories on either side of a case. It is based on a hybrid inference model that combines argumentation and explanation, using inference to the best explanation as the central form of argument. The model is applied to one civil case and two criminal cases. It is shown to have some striking implications for modelling and using traditional proof standards like preponderance of the evidence and beyond reasonable doubt.
Tomasz Zurek of Maria Curie-Sklodowska University presented a paper entitled Conflicts in Legal Knowledge Base, at LIT 2010: The 3rd Workshop on Legal Informatics and Legal Information Technology, held 3 May 2010, in Berlin, Germany, in conjunction with BIS 2010: The 13th International Conference on Business Information Systems. Here is the abstract of the paper:
The simulation of inference processes performed by lawyers can be seen as one way to create advisory legal system. In order to simulate such a process as accurately as possible, it is indispensable to make a clear-cut distinction between the provision itself, and its interpretation and inference mechanisms. This distinction would allow for preserving both the universal character of the provision and its applicability to various legal problems. The author’s main objective was to model a selected legal act, together with the inference rules applied, and to represent them in an advisory system, focusing on the most accurate representation of both the content and inference rules. Given that the laws which stand in contradiction prove to be the major challenge, they will constitute the primary focus of this study.
For the full text of the paper, please contact the author.
Professor Hendrik Kaptein of Leiden University, and Professor Henry Prakken and Professor Bart Verheij, both of the University of Groningen, have published an article collection entitled Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic (2009). Here is the abstract:
“As a result of recent scandals concerning evidence and proof in the administration of criminal justice – ranging from innocent people on death row in the United States to misuse of statistics leading to wrongful convictions in The Netherlands and elsewhere – inquiries into the logic of evidence and proof have taken on a new urgency both in an academic and practical sense.
“This study presents a broad perspective on logic by focusing on inference not just in isolation but as embedded in contexts of procedure and investigation. With special attention being paid to recent developments in Artificial Intelligence and the Law, specifically related to evidentiary reasoning, this book provides clarification of problems of logic and argumentation in relation to evidence and proof.
“As the vast majority of legal conflicts relate to contested facts, rather than contested law, this volume concerning facts as prime determinants of legal decisions presents an important contribution to the field for both scholars and practitioners.”
Here is the table of contents:
Professor Douglas Walton of the University of Windsor Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric has published a review of this book, forthcoming in Artificial Intelligence & Law.
The Cuarto Foro Sobre Epistemología Jurídica = Mini-Foro on Proof and Truth in the Law, is being held on September 4-5, 2009, in Mexico City, at the Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas (IIFs) = Institute for Philosophical Research, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México (UNAM). Here is the program: