Artificial Intelligence and Law 29 (4):541-557 (2021)

Abstract
There are cases in which the literal interpretation of statutes may lead to counterintuitive consequences. When such cases go to high courts, judges may handle these counterintuitive consequences by identifying problematic rule conditions. Given that the law consists of a large number of rule conditions, it is demanding and exhaustive to figure out which condition is problematic. For solving this problem, our work aims to assist judges in civil law systems to resolve counterintuitive consequences using logic program representation of statutes and Legal Debugging. The core principle of Legal Debugging is to cooperate with a user to find a culprit, a root cause of counterintuitive consequences. This article proposes an algorithm to resolve a culprit. Since the statutes are represented by logic rules but changes in law are initiated by cases, we adopt a prototypical case with judgement specified by a set of rules. Then, to resolve a culprit, we reconstruct a program so that it provides reasons as if we applied case-based reasoning to a new set of prototypical cases with judgement, which include a new set of facts relevant to a considering case.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10506-021-09283-7
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,172
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

An Improved Factor Based Approach to Precedential Constraint.Adam Rigoni - 2015 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 23 (2):133-160.
Statutory Interpretation as Argumentation.Douglas Walton, Giovanni Sartor & Fabrizio Macagno - 2018 - In Colin Aitken, Amalia Amaya, Kevin D. Ashley, Carla Bagnoli, Giorgio Bongiovanni, Bartosz Brożek, Cristiano Castelfranchi, Samuele Chilovi, Marcello Di Bello, Jaap Hage, Kenneth Einar Himma, Lewis A. Kornhauser, Emiliano Lorini, Fabrizio Macagno, Andrei Marmor, J. J. Moreso, Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco, Antonino Rotolo, Giovanni Sartor, Burkhard Schafer, Chiara Valentini, Bart Verheij, Douglas Walton & Wojciech Załuski (eds.), Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. Cambridge University Press. pp. 519-560.

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Law Smells.Corinna Coupette, Dirk Hartung, Janis Beckedorf, Maximilian Böther & Daniel Martin Katz - forthcoming - Artificial Intelligence and Law:1-34.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Rationalität und Legitimität der Folgenberücksichtigung.Philipp Lassahn - 2013 - Archiv für Rechts- Und Sozialphilosophie 99 (3):323-357.
Still Counterintuitive: A Reply to Kremer.Roy T. Cook - 2003 - Analysis 63 (3):257–261.
Criminalization and the Collateral Consequences of Conviction.Zachary Hoskins - 2018 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 12 (4):625-639.
Argumentation and the Diffusion of Counter-Intuitive Beliefs.Nicolas Claidière, Emmanuel Trouche & Hugo Mercier - 2017 - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 146 (7):1052-1066.
Counterfactuality in Counterintuitive Religious Concepts.Justin L. Barrett - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (6):731-732.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-04-06

Total views
11 ( #855,445 of 2,517,876 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #409,482 of 2,517,876 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes