Presumptions and Burdens of Proof

Authors:
Henry Prakken;Giovanni Sartor
Affiliations:
Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University and Faculty of Law, University of Groningen, The Netherlands;CIRSFID, University of Bologna and European University Institute, Law Department, Florence, Italy
Venue:
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference
Year:
2006

Citing 4
Cited 16

Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure

Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Dialogues about the burden of proof

ICAIL '05 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure?

Fundamenta Informaticae - Deontic Logic in Computer Science
The Carneades Argumentation FrameworkUsing Presumptions and Exceptions to Model Critical Questions

Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006

Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion

Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Argumentation and standards of proof

Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof

Artificial Intelligence
Abstract Argumentation Scheme Frameworks

AIMSA '08 Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems, and Applications
A dialogical theory of presumption

Artificial Intelligence and Law
A formal model of adjudication dialogues

Artificial Intelligence and Law
An Asymmetric Protocol for Argumentation Games in Defeasible Logic

Agent Computing and Multi-Agent Systems
Formalising ordinary legal disputes: a case study

Artificial Intelligence and Law
More on Presumptions and Burdens of Proof

Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference
Legal rules and argumentation in a metalogic framework

Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference
Translating the Japanese Presupposed Ultimate Fact Theory into Logic Programming

Proceedings of the 2009 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2009: The Twenty-Second Annual Conference
Dialogue games in defeasible logic

AI'07 Proceedings of the 20th Australian joint conference on Advances in artificial intelligence
Types of Dialogue and Burdens of Proof

Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010
Burdens of Proof in Monological Argumentation

Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2010: The Twenty-Third Annual Conference
A dynamic metalogic argumentation framework implementation

RuleML'2011 Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Rule-based reasoning, programming, and applications
Burden of proof in deliberation dialogs

ArgMAS'09 Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

This paper studies the logical modelling of presumptions and their effects on the burden of proof. Presumptions are modelled as default rules and their effect on the burden of proof is defined in terms of a distinction between the burden of production, the burden of persuasion and the tactical burden of proof. These notions are logically characterised in such a way that presumptions enable a party to fulfil a burden of production or persuasion while shifting a tactical burden to the other party. Finally, it is shown how debates about what can be presumed can be modelled as debates about the backings of default rules.