Decision support for criminal sentencing and plea bargaining

Proceedings of the 5th IASTED International Conference on Law and Technology, LawTech 2007

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 49-59

  Mackenzie, Geraldine ^a   Vincent, Andrew ^b,c   Zeleznikow, John ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b VICTORIA UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Discretion; Online Dispute Resolution; Plea Bargaining; Sentencing Decision Support; Toulmin Argumentation

Indexed keywords

DISCRETION; ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION; PLEA BARGAINING; SENTENCING DECISION SUPPORT; TOULMIN ARGUMENTATION;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; DECISION MAKING; DECISION THEORY; LAW ENFORCEMENT;

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS;

EID: 63149171269     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (36)

1. M. E. Frankel, Criminal Sentences: Law without Order (New York: Hill and Wang, 1972).
2. M. Bagaric and R. Edney, The Sentencing Advisory Commission and the hope of smarter sentencing, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 16, 2004, 125-139.
3. th, London: Butterworths, 2005).
4. R. Edney, Still plucking figures out of the air?: Markarian and the affirmation of the instinctive synthesis, High Court Quarterly Review, 1, 2005, 50-57.
5. S. Traynor and I. Potas, Sentencing Methodology: Two-tiered or Instinctive Synthesis, Sentencing Trends and Issues, 25, 2002, New South Wales Judicial Commission (http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/st/st25/index.html, last viewed 15/10/2006).
6. G. Mackenzie How Judges Sentence (Annandale: The Federation Press, 2005).
7. A. Ashworth, E. Genders, G. Mansfield, J. Peay and E. Player, Sentencing in the Crown Court: Report of an exploratory study (Centre for Criminological Research, Oxford, 1984).
8. P. Brest, The critique of pure reason: The role of intuition in judgment and decision making, International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2005, keynote paper.
9. V. L. Sauter, Intuitive decision-making, Communications of the ACM, 42(6), 1999, 109-115.
10. R. M. Hogarth, Educating Intuition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001).
11. C. Tata, Resolute ambivalence: Why judiciaries do not institutionalise their decision support systems, International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 14, 2000, 297-316.
12. S.E. Toulmin, The uses of argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958).
13. J. Yearwood and A. Stranieri, The Generic Actual Argument Model of practical reasoning, Decision Support Systems, 41, 2006, 358-379.
14. A. Stranieri, J. Yearwood, and T. Meikle, The dependency of discretion and consistency on knowledge representation, International Review of Law Computers and Technology, 14, 2000, 325-340.
15. A. Stranieri, J. Zeleznikow, & J. Yearwood, Argumentation structures that integrate dialectical and non-dialectical reasoning, Knowledge Engineering Review, 16, 2001, 331-348.
16. A. Stranieri, J. Zeleznikow, M. Gawler, & B. Lewis, A hybrid-neural approach to the automation of legal reasoning in the discretionary domain of family law in Australia, Artficial Intelligence and Law, 7, 1999, 53-183.
17. J. Zeleznikow and D. Hunter, Building intelligent legal information systems: knowledge representation and reasoning in law (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994).
18. J. Zeleznikow, A. Stranieri, & M. Gawler, Split-Up: A legal expert system which determines property division upon divorce, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3, 1996, 267-275.
19. M. J. Hall, D. Calabro, T. Sourdin, A. Stranieri, & J. Zeleznikow, Supporting discretionary decision making with information technology: a case study in the criminal sentencing jurisdiction, University of Ottawa Law and Technology Journal, 2(1), 2005, 1
20. A. Lodder and J. Zeleznikow, Developing an online dispute resolution environment: dialogue tools negotiation systems in a three step model, Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 10, 2005, 287-338.
21. W. Hodge, R. Harrison, & G.L. Colgan, Plea Bargaining, Commonwealth Law Journal, 7, 2005, 1112.
22. S. Bibas, Plea bargaining outside the shadow of the trial, Harvard Law Review, 117, 2004, 2463.
23. K. Mack and S. Roach Anleu, Guilty pleas: Discussions and agreements, Journal of Judicial Administration, 6(8), 1996, 9.
24. E. Bellucci and J. Zeleznikow, Developing Negotiation Decision Support Systems that support mediators: a case study of the Family-Winner system, Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law, 13(2), 2006, 233-271.
25. J. Yearwood, and A. Stranieri, The Integration of Retrieval, Reasoning and Drafting for Refugee Law: A Third Generation Legal Knowledge Based System. In Proceedings of Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Oslo 1999, 117-126
26. A. Stranieri, and J. Zeleznikow, Copyright Regulation with Argumentation Agents, Information and Communications Technology Law 10(1), 2001, 109-123.
27. D. Rhode, Access to Justice. (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2004).
28. B. De Vries, R. Leenes, & J. Zeleznikow, Fundamentals of Providing Negotiation Advice Online: the Need for Developing BATNAs. Proceedings of Second International ODR Workshop, 2005, 47-58.
29. U. Schild, Criminal Sentencing and Intelligent Decision Support, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6, 1998, 151-202.
30. N. Hutton, A. Patterson, C.Tata & J.N. Wilson, Decision Support for sentencing in a common law jurisdiction, Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-95), 2005, 89-95.
31. H. Ross, Settled Out of Court (Aldine, 1980)
32. G. Williams, Legal Negotiation and Settlement (West Publishing Co: St. Paul, Minnesota, 1983).
33. B. Van Velthoven and M Ter Voert, Geschilbeslechtingsdelta 2003 (The Hague: WODC/Boom, 2004).
34. G Mackenzie, Achieving Consistency in Sentencing: Moving to Best Practice?, University of Queensland Law Journal, 22(1), 2001, 74-90.
35. J Cook, All Aboard! The Supreme Court, Guilty Pleas, and the Railroading of Criminal Defendants University of Colorado Law Review, 75, 2004, 863-9 19.
36. S Moore, Re-examining the Admissive Effect of Guilty Pleas at Sentencing", University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1998, 463-480.