Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1571 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (37 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (51 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (92 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (27 journals)
    - CRIMINOLOGY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (154 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (24 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (190 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (23 journals)
    - LAW (964 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (9 journals)

LAW (964 journals)                  1 2 3 4 5 | Last

Showing 1 - 200 of 354 Journals sorted alphabetically
(En)clave Comahue. Revista Patagónica de Estudios Sociales     Open Access  
ABA Journal Magazine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 25)
Acta Juridica     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Acta Politica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19)
Acta Universitatis Danubius. Juridica     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis : Folia Iuridica     Open Access  
Actualidad Jurídica Ambiental     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Adelaide Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 26)
Administrative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 47)
Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
AfP : Zeitschrift für das gesamte Medienrecht / Archiv für Presserecht     Hybrid Journal  
African Journal on Conflict Resolution     Open Access   (Followers: 27)
Afrilex     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Ahkam : Jurnal Hukum Islam     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Ahkam : Jurnal Ilmu Syariah     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Air and Space Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 23)
Akron Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Al 'Adalah : Jurnal Hukum Islam     Open Access  
Al Ihkam : Jurnal Hukum & Pranata Sosial     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
AL Rafidain law journal     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Al-Ahkam     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Al-Istinbath : Jurnal Hukum Islam     Open Access  
Al-Risalah     Free   (Followers: 1)
Alaska Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Albany Law Review     Free   (Followers: 6)
Alberta Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 16)
Alternative Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
Alternatives : Global, Local, Political     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Amazon's Research and Environmental Law     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
American Journal of Comparative Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 61)
American Journal of Jurisprudence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19)
American Journal of Law & Medicine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
American Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11)
American Journal of Trial Advocacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
American University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 12)
American University National Security Law Brief     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Amicus Curiae     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Amsterdam Law Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Anales : Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales de la Universidad Nacional de La Plata     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez     Open Access  
Annales Canonici     Open Access  
Annales de droit     Open Access  
Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul     Open Access  
Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska, sectio G (Ius)     Open Access  
Annals of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade - Belgrade Law Review     Open Access  
Anuario da Facultade de Dereito da Universidade da Coruña     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho : Universidad de Extremadura (AFDUE)     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Anuario de Psicología Jurídica     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ANZSLA Commentator, The     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Appeal : Review of Current Law and Law Reform     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arbeidsrett     Full-text available via subscription  
Arbitration Law Monthly     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Arbitration Law Reports and Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Arctic Review on Law and Politics     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arena Hukum     Open Access  
Argumenta Journal Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arizona Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Arizona State Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 3)
Arkansas Law Review     Free   (Followers: 6)
Ars Aequi Maandblad     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Art + Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
Article 40     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Artificial Intelligence and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
ASAS : Jurnal Hukum dan Ekonomi Islam     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ASEAN Journal of Legal Studies     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Asia Pacific Law Review     Open Access  
Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy     Hybrid Journal  
Asian American Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Asian Journal of Law and Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Asian Journal of Legal Education     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Asian Pacific American Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Asy-Syir'ah : Jurnal Ilmu Syari'ah dan Hukum     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Atti della Accademia Peloritana dei Pericolanti - Classe di Scienze Giuridiche, Economiche e Politiche     Open Access  
Australasian Law Management Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 10)
Australian Feminist Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Australian Indigenous Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 21)
Australian Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
Ave Maria Law Review     Free   (Followers: 4)
Badamai Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Ballot     Open Access  
Baltic Journal of Law & Politics     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Bar News: The Journal of the NSW Bar Association     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Behavioral Sciences & the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28)
Beijing Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Berkeley Journal of Entertainment and Sports Law     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 14)
BestuuR     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Bioderecho.es     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Bioethics Research Notes     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 15)
Boletín de la Asociación Internacional de Derecho Cooperativo     Open Access  
Boletín Instituto de Derecho Ambiental y de los Recursos Naturales     Open Access  
Bond Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 18)
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
Boston College Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 15)
Boston University Law Review     Free   (Followers: 11)
Bratislava Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
BRICS Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Brigham Young University Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
British Journal of American Legal Studies     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Brooklyn Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Bulletin of Legal Medicine     Open Access  
Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Bulletin of Yaroslav Mudryi NLU : Series : Philosophy, philosophy of law, political science, sociology     Open Access  
Business and Human Rights Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
C@hiers du CRHIDI     Open Access  
Cadernos de Dereito Actual     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Cadernos de Informação Jurídica     Open Access  
Cadernos do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito - PPGDir./UFRGS     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Cahiers de la Recherche sur les Droits Fondamentaux     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Cahiers Droit, Sciences & Technologies     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
California Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 23)
California Western Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Cambridge Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 224)
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Campbell Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Campus Legal Advisor     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Canadian Journal of Law and Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22)
Canadian Journal of Law and Technology     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Case Western Reserve Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi     Open Access  
Catalyst : A Social Justice Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Catholic University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Católica Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Chicago-Kent Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Chicana/o-Latina/o Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
China : An International Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 19)
China-EU Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
Chinese Journal of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Chinese Journal of Environmental Law     Hybrid Journal  
Chinese Law & Government     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Chulalongkorn Law Journal     Open Access  
Cleveland State Law Review     Free   (Followers: 2)
Clínica Jurídica per la Justícia Social : Informes     Open Access  
CMU Journal of Law and Social Sciences     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
College Athletics and The Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Colombia Forense     Open Access  
Columbia Journal of Environmental Law     Open Access   (Followers: 12)
Columbia Journal of Gender and Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 17)
Columbia Journal of Race and Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Columbia Journal of Tax Law     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Columbia Law Review (Sidebar)     Open Access   (Followers: 20)
Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of Australia     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Comparative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 42)
Comparative Legal History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Comparative Legilinguistics     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Con-texto     Open Access  
Conflict Resolution Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 42)
Conflict Trends     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Cornell Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 14)
Criterio Jurídico     Open Access  
Critical Analysis of Law : An International & Interdisciplinary Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Cuadernos de Historia del Derecho     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Cuestiones Juridicas     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Current Legal Problems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29)
Danube     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
De Jure     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
De Rebus     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Deakin Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 15)
Debater a Europa     Open Access  
Defense Counsel Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Democrazia e diritto     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Denning Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
DePaul Journal of Women, Gender and the Law     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
DePaul Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Derecho Animal. Forum of Animal Law Studies     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Derecho PUCP     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Derecho y Ciencias Sociales     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Derecho y Realidad     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Derechos en Acción     Open Access  
Dereito : Revista Xurídica da Universidade de Santiago de Compostela     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Deusto Journal of Human Rights     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Dicle Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi     Open Access  
DiH : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Dikaion     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Dike     Open Access  
Dikê : Revista de Investigación en Derecho, Criminología y Consultoría Jurídica     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Diké : Revista Jurídica     Open Access  
Direito e Desenvolvimento     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Direito.UnB : Revista de Direito da Universidade de Brasília     Open Access  
Diritto penale contemporaneo     Free   (Followers: 4)
Diritto, immigrazione e cittadinanza     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Dixi     Open Access  
Doxa : Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho     Open Access  
Droit et Cultures     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Droit et Médecine Bucco-Dentaire     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Droit, Déontologie & Soin     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Drug Science, Policy and Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Duke Forum for Law & Social Change     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 22)
Duke Law & Technology Review     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
Duke Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 26)
DULR Online     Open Access   (Followers: 1)

        1 2 3 4 5 | Last

Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Artificial Intelligence and Law
Journal Prestige (SJR): 0.937
Citation Impact (citeScore): 2
Number of Followers: 13  
 
  Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
ISSN (Print) 1572-8382 - ISSN (Online) 0924-8463
Published by Springer-Verlag Homepage  [2626 journals]
  • Scalable and explainable legal prediction
    • Abstract: Abstract Legal decision-support systems have the potential to improve access to justice, administrative efficiency, and judicial consistency, but broad adoption of such systems is contingent on development of technologies with low knowledge-engineering, validation, and maintenance costs. This paper describes two approaches to an important form of legal decision support—explainable outcome prediction—that obviate both annotation of an entire decision corpus and manual processing of new cases. The first approach, which uses an attention network for prediction and attention weights to highlight salient case text, was shown to be capable of predicting decisions, but attention-weight-based text highlighting did not demonstrably improve human decision speed or accuracy in an evaluation with 61 human subjects. The second approach, termed semi-supervised case annotation for legal explanations, exploits structural and semantic regularities in case corpora to identify textual patterns that have both predictable relationships to case decisions and explanatory value.
      PubDate: 2020-06-24
       
  • Populating legal ontologies using semantic role labeling
    • Abstract: Abstract This article seeks to address the problem of the ‘resource consumption bottleneck’ of creating legal semantic technologies manually. It describes a semantic role labeling based information extraction system to extract definitions and norms from legislation and represent them as structured norms in legal ontologies. The output is intended to help make laws more accessible, understandable, and searchable in a legal document management system.
      PubDate: 2020-06-24
       
  • In memoriam Douglas N. Walton: the influence of Doug Walton on AI and law
    • Abstract: Abstract Doug Walton, who died in January 2020, was a prolific author whose work in informal logic and argumentation had a profound influence on Artificial Intelligence, including Artificial Intelligence and Law. He was also very interested in interdisciplinary work, and a frequent and generous collaborator. In this paper seven leading researchers in AI and Law, all past programme chairs of the International Conference on AI and Law who have worked with him, describe his influence on their work.
      PubDate: 2020-06-16
       
  • Evaluating causes of algorithmic bias in juvenile criminal recidivism
    • Abstract: Abstract In this paper we investigate risk prediction of criminal re-offense among juvenile defendants using general-purpose machine learning (ML) algorithms. We show that in our dataset, containing hundreds of cases, ML models achieve better predictive power than a structured professional risk assessment tool, the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), at the expense of not satisfying relevant group fairness metrics that SAVRY does satisfy. We explore in more detail two possible causes of this algorithmic bias that are related to biases in the data with respect to two protected groups, foreigners and women. In particular, we look at (1) the differences in the prevalence of re-offense between protected groups and (2) the influence of protected group or correlated features in the prediction. Our experiments show that both can lead to disparity between groups on the considered group fairness metrics. We observe that methods to mitigate the influence of either cause do not guarantee fair outcomes. An analysis of feature importance using LIME, a machine learning interpretability method, shows that some mitigation methods can shift the set of features that ML techniques rely on away from demographics and criminal history which are highly correlated with sensitive features.
      PubDate: 2020-06-07
       
  • Taking stock of legal ontologies: a feature-based comparative analysis
    • Abstract: Abstract Ontologies represent the standard way to model the knowledge about specific domains. This holds also for the legal domain where several ontologies have been put forward to model specific kinds of legal knowledge. Both for standard users and for law scholars, it is often difficult to have an overall view on the existing alternatives, their main features and their interlinking with the other ontologies. To answer this need, in this paper, we address an analysis of the state-of-the-art in legal ontologies and we characterise them along with some distinctive features. This paper aims to guide generic users and law experts in selecting the legal ontology that better fits their needs and in understanding its specificity so that proper extensions to the selected model could be investigated.
      PubDate: 2020-06-01
       
  • Using machine learning to predict decisions of the European Court of Human
           Rights
    • Abstract: Abstract When courts started publishing judgements, big data analysis (i.e. large-scale statistical analysis of case law and machine learning) within the legal domain became possible. By taking data from the European Court of Human Rights as an example, we investigate how natural language processing tools can be used to analyse texts of the court proceedings in order to automatically predict (future) judicial decisions. With an average accuracy of 75% in predicting the violation of 9 articles of the European Convention on Human Rights our (relatively simple) approach highlights the potential of machine learning approaches in the legal domain. We show, however, that predicting decisions for future cases based on the cases from the past negatively impacts performance (average accuracy range from 58 to 68%). Furthermore, we demonstrate that we can achieve a relatively high classification performance (average accuracy of 65%) when predicting outcomes based only on the surnames of the judges that try the case.
      PubDate: 2020-06-01
       
  • ICAIL Doctoral Consortium, Montreal 2019
    • Abstract: Abstract This is a report on the Doctoral Consortium co-located with the 17th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law in Montreal.
      PubDate: 2020-05-26
       
  • Administrative due process when using automated decision-making in public
           administration: some notes from a Finnish perspective
    • Abstract: Abstract Various due process provisions designed for use by civil servants in administrative decision-making may become redundant when automated decision-making is taken into use in public administration. Problems with mechanisms of good government, responsibility and liability for automated decisions and the rule of law require attention of the law-maker in adapting legal provisions to this new form of decision-making. Although the general data protection regulation of the European Union is important in acknowledging automated decision-making, most of the legal safeguards within administrative due process have to be provided for by the national law-maker. It is suggested that all countries have a need to review their rules of administrative due process with a view to bringing them up to date regarding the requirements of automated decision-making. In whichever way the legislation is framed, the key issues are that persons who develop the algorithm and the code as well as persons who run or deal with the software within public authorities are aware of the preventive safeguards of legality in the context of automated decision-making, not only of the reactive safeguards constituted by the complaint procedures, and that legal mechanisms exist under which these persons can be held accountable and liable for decisions produced by automated decision-making. It is also argued that only rule-based systems of automatized decision-making are compatible with the rule of law and that there is a general interest in preventing a development into a rule of algorithm.
      PubDate: 2020-05-22
       
  • Artificial intelligence as law
    • Abstract: Abstract Information technology is so ubiquitous and AI’s progress so inspiring that also legal professionals experience its benefits and have high expectations. At the same time, the powers of AI have been rising so strongly that it is no longer obvious that AI applications (whether in the law or elsewhere) help promoting a good society; in fact they are sometimes harmful. Hence many argue that safeguards are needed for AI to be trustworthy, social, responsible, humane, ethical. In short: AI should be good for us. But how to establish proper safeguards for AI' One strong answer readily available is: consider the problems and solutions studied in AI & Law. AI & Law has worked on the design of social, explainable, responsible AI aligned with human values for decades already, AI & Law addresses the hardest problems across the breadth of AI (in reasoning, knowledge, learning and language), and AI & Law inspires new solutions (argumentation, schemes and norms, rules and cases, interpretation). It is argued that the study of AI as Law supports the development of an AI that is good for us, making AI & Law more relevant than ever.
      PubDate: 2020-05-14
       
  • Correction to: Modeling law search as prediction
    • Abstract: In the original publication of the article
      PubDate: 2020-04-13
       
  • Law and software agents: Are they “Agents” by the way'
    • Abstract: Abstract Using intelligent software agents in the world of e-commerce may give rise to many difficulties especially with regard to the validity of agent-based contracts and the attribution of liability for the actions of such agents. This paper thus critically examines the main approaches that have been advanced to deal with software agents, and proposes the gradual approach as a way of overcoming the difficulties of such agents by adopting different standards of responsibility depending whether the action is done autonomously by an unattended software, or whether it is done automatically by an attended software. Throughout this paper, it is argued that the introduction of “one size” regulation without sufficient consideration of the nature of software agents or the environments in which they communicate might lead to a divorce between the legal theory and technological practice. It is also concluded that it is incorrect to deal with software agents as if they were either legal persons or nothing without in any way accounting for the fact that there are various kinds of such agents endowed with different levels of autonomy, mobility, intelligence, and sophistication. However, this paper is not intended to provide the final answer to all problematic questions posed by the emergence of intelligent software agents, but is designed to provide some kind of temporary relief until such agents reach a more reliable and autonomous level whereby law begins to regard them, rather than their users, as the source of the relevant action.
      PubDate: 2020-03-23
       
  • Arguing about causes in law: a semi-formal framework for causal arguments
    • Abstract: Abstract Disputes over causes play a central role in legal argumentation and liability attribution. Legal approaches to causation often struggle to capture cause-in-fact in complex situations, e.g. overdetermination, preemption, omission. In this paper, we first assess three current theories of causation (but-for, NESS, ‘actual causation’) to illustrate their strengths and weaknesses in capturing cause-in-fact. Secondly, we introduce a semi-formal framework for modelling causal arguments through strict and defeasible rules. Thirdly, the framework is applied to the Althen vaccine injury case. And lastly, we discuss the need for new criteria based on a common causal argumentation framework and propose ideas on how to integrate the current theories of causation to assess the strength of causal arguments, while also acknowledging the tension between evidence-based and policy-based causal analysis in law.
      PubDate: 2020-03-01
       
  • A new use case for argumentation support tools: supporting discussions of
           Bayesian analyses of complex criminal cases
    • Abstract: Abstract 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.
      PubDate: 2020-03-01
       
  • Assessment criteria or standards of proof' An effort in clarification
    • Abstract: Abstract The paper provides a conceptual distinction between evidence assessment criteria and standards of proof. Evidence must be assessed in order to check whether it satisfies a relevant standard of proof, and the assessment is operated with some criterion; so both criteria and standards are necessary for fact-finding. In addition to this conceptual point, the article addresses three main questions: (1) Why do some scholars and decision-makers take assessment criteria as standards of proof and vice versa' (2) Why do systems differ as to criteria and standards' (3) How can a system work if it neglects one of these things' The answers to the first and second question come from the historical and procedural differences between the systems. The answer to the third focuses on the functional connection between criteria and standards.
      PubDate: 2020-03-01
       
  • A system of communication rules for justifying and explaining beliefs
           about facts in civil trials
    • Abstract: Abstract This paper addresses the problems of justifying and explaining beliefs about facts in the context of civil trials. The first section contains some remarks about the nature of adjudicative fact-finding and highlights the communicative features of deciding about facts in judicial context. In Sect. 2, some difficulties and the incompleteness presented by Bayesian and coherentist frameworks, which are taken as methods suitable to solve the above-mentioned problems, are pointed out. In the third section, the purely epistemic approach to the justification and the explanation of beliefs about facts is abandoned and focus is given to the dialectical nature of civil procedure, where the parties and, particularly, the judge have to make their reasoning clear enough to allow a fruitful and efficient debate about facts. For this purpose, a communication/argumentation system is put forward, consisting of fourteen intertwined rules of discourse. The system embodies the fundamental epistemic principle according to which belief is updated given new evidence, is tailored for abductive inferences and is structured on fundamental concepts of civil procedural law. The fourth section presents an empirical application of the system to a real case.
      PubDate: 2020-03-01
       
  • Group-to-individual (G2i) inferences: challenges in modeling how the U.S.
           court system uses brain data
    • Abstract: Abstract Regardless of formalization used, one on-going challenge for AI systems that model legal proceedings is accounting for contextual issues, particularly where judicial decisions are made in criminal cases. The law assumes a rational approach to rule application in deciding a defendant’s guilt; however, judges and juries can behave irrationally. What should a model prize: efficiency, accuracy, or fairness' Exactly whether and how to incorporate the psychology of courtroom interactions into formal models or expert systems has only just begun to be examined in a serious fashion. Here, I outline data from the United States which suggest that trying to incorporate psychological biases into formal models of legal decision-making will be challenging. I focus on the use of neuroscience data in criminal trials, homing in on so-called group-to-individual (G2i) inferences. I argue that data which should be the most effective at swaying judicial decisions are in fact those most likely not to make a difference in the disposition of the case. I conclude that judges often assign culpability by ignoring what our best science regarding how human decision-making occurs.
      PubDate: 2020-03-01
       
  • Proof beyond a context-relevant doubt. A structural analysis of the
           standard of proof in criminal adjudication
    • Abstract: Abstract The present article proceeds from the mainstream view that the conceptual framework underpinning adversarial systems of criminal adjudication, i.e. a mixture of common-sense philosophy and probabilistic analysis, is unsustainable. In order to provide fact-finders with an operable structure of justification, we need to turn to epistemology once again. The article proceeds in three parts. First, I examine the structural features of justification and how various theories have attempted to overcome Agrippa’s trilemma. Second, I put Inferential Contextualism to the test and show that a defeasible structure of justification allocating epistemic rights and duties to all participants of an inquiry manages to dissolve the problem of scepticism. Third, I show that our epistemic practice already embodies a contextualist mechanism. Our problem was not that our Standard of Proof is inoperable but that it was not adequately conceptualized. Contextualism provides the framework to articulate the abovementioned practice and to treat ‘reasonable doubts’ as a mechanism which we can now describe in detail. The seemingly insurmountable problem with our efforts to define the concept “reasonable doubts” was the fact that we have been conflating the surface features of this mechanism and its internal structure, i.e. the rules for its use.
      PubDate: 2020-03-01
       
  • Normative decision analysis in forensic science
    • Abstract: Abstract This paper focuses on the normative analysis—in the sense of the classic decision-theoretic formulation—of decision problems that arise in connection with forensic expert reporting. We distinguish this analytical account from other common types of decision analyses, such as descriptive approaches. While decision theory is, since several decades, an extensively discussed topic in legal literature, its use in forensic science is more recent, and with an emphasis on goals such as the analysis of the logical structure of forensic expert conclusions regarding, for example, propositions of common source of evidential and known materials. Typical examples are so-called identification (or, individualization) decisions, especially categorical conclusions according to which fingermarks (or stains of biological nature, handwriting, etc.) come from a particular a person of interest. We will present and compare ways of stating forensic identification decisions in decision-theoretic terms and explain their underlying rationale. In particular, we will emphasize the importance of viewing this analysis as normative in the sense of providing a reflective rather than a prescriptive reference point against which people in charge of forensic identification decisions may compare their otherwise (possibly) intuitive and informal reasoning, before acting. Normative decision analysis in forensic science thus provides a vector through which current practice can be articulated, scrutinized and rethought.
      PubDate: 2020-03-01
       
  • Interactive virtue and vice in systems of arguments: a logocratic analysis
    • Abstract: Abstract The Logocratic Method, and the Logocratic theory that underwrites it, provide a philosophical explanation of three purposes or goals that arguers have for their arguments: to make arguments that are internally strong (the premises follow from the conclusions, to a greater or lesser degree—greatest degree in valid deductive arguments), or that are dialectically strong (win in some forum of argument competition, as for example in litigation contests of plaintiffs or prosecutors on the one hand, and defendants, on the other), or that are rhetorically strong (effective at persuading a targeted audience). This article presents the basic terms and methods of Logocratic analysis and then uses a case study to illustrate the Logocratic explanation of arguments. Highlights of this explanation are: the use of a (non-moral) virtue (and vice) framework to explicate the three strengths and weaknesses of arguments that are of greatest interest to arguers in many contexts (including but not limited to the context of legal argument), the Logocratic explication of the structure of abduction generally and of legal abduction specifically, the concept of a system of arguments, and the concept of the dynamic interactive virtue (and vice) of arguments—a property of systems of arguments in which the system of arguments as a whole (for example, the set of several arguments typically offered by a plaintiff or by a defendant) is as virtuous (or vicious) as are the component arguments that comprise the system. This is especially important since, according to Logocratic theory (and as illustrated in detail in this paper), some arguments, such as abduction and analogical argument, are themselves comprised of different logical forms (for example, abduction always plays a role within analogical argument, and either deduction or defeasible modus ponens, always plays a role within legal abduction).
      PubDate: 2019-08-10
       
  • Evidence & decision making in the law: theoretical, computational
           and empirical approaches
    • PubDate: 2019-06-22
       
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 35.168.111.204
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-