Dialogues about the burden of proof
ICAIL '05 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion
Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof
Artificial Intelligence
Presumptions and Burdens of Proof
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference
Hybrid Reasoning with Argumentation Schemes
Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Knowledge-Based Software Engineering: Proceedings of the Eighth Joint Conference on Knowledge-Based Software Engineering
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
The notions of burden of proof and presumption are central to law, but as noted in McCormick on Evidence, they are also the slipperiest of any of the family of legal terms employed in legal reasoning. However, recent studies of burden of proof and presumption (Prakken et al. 2005; Prakken and Sartor 2006). Gordon et al. (2007) offer formal models that can render them into precise tools useful for legal reasoning. In this paper, the various theories and formal models are comparatively evaluated with the aim of working out a more comprehensive theory that can integrate the components of the argumentation structure on which they are based. It is shown that the notion of presumption has both a logical component and a dialectical component, and the new theory of presumption developed in the paper, called the dialogical theory, combines these two components.