Towards a general theory of action and time
Artificial Intelligence
A case-based system for trade secrets law
ICAIL '87 Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Interpreting statutory predicates
ICAIL '89 Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Representing and reusing explanations of legal precedents
ICAIL '89 Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Design of the kernel language for the parallel inference machine
The Computer Journal - On concurrent logic programming
Representing and reasoning about open-textured predicates
ICAIL '91 Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
The structure of norm conditions and nonmonotonic reasoning in law
ICAIL '91 Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
HELIC-II: legal reasoning system on the parallel inference machine
Selected papers of international conference on Fifth generation computer systems 92
DiaLaw: a dialogical framework for modeling legal reasoning
ICAIL '95 Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
New HELIC-II: a software tool for legal reasoning
ICAIL '95 Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Progress on Room 5: a testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
A Deductive Object-Oriented Database System for Situated Inference in Law
IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
The purpose of this paper is to describe a computational model for legal reasoning in criminal law (i.e. trial reasoning). This logic-programming based model contains seven key components: facts of a new case, old cases, domain knowledge, meta rules, similarity matching relations, various implications, and two explicit agents, the plaintiff and the defendant, with opposing goals and reasoning strategies. The argumentation process in this model can be likened to a two-agent game. One agent puts forward an argument. The other agent recognizes the situation, generates candidates to refute the claim, and selects the best one for the next move. The game ends when any one agent can no longer make a move. Certain debate strategies of this model are illustrated in this paper with examples. In addition, the computational model presented has been used in the design and development of HELIC-II - a parallel knowledge-based system for trial reasoning.