Criminal sentencing, intuition and decision support

Advances and Innovations in Systems, Computing Sciences and Software Engineering

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 41-46

  Vincent, Andrew ^a,b   Sourdin, Tania ^b   Zeleznikow, John ^a  

^a VICTORIA UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION SUPPORTS; TOULMIN MODELS;

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 84878220919     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6264-3_8     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

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 vol. 16, pp. 125-139, 2004.
3. A. Ashworth, Sentencing and Criminal Justice, 2nd ed, London: Butterworths, 1995.
4. R. Edney, "Still plucking figures out of the air?: Markarian and the affirmation of the instinctive synthesis, " High Court Quarterly Review, vol. 1, pp. 50-57, 2005.
5. S. Traynor and I. Potas, "Sentencing Methodology: Two-tiered or Instinctive Synthesis, " Sentencing Trends and Issues, vol. 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 Intellgience and Law, 2005, keynote paper.
9. V. L. Sauter, "Intuitive decision-making, " Communications of the ACM, vol. 42(6), pp. 109-115, June 1999.
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, vol 14, pp. 297-316, 2000.
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, vol. 41, pp. 358-379, 2006.
14. A. Stranieri, J. Yearwood, and T. Meikle, "The dependency of discretion and consistency on knowledge representation, " International Review of Law Computers and Technology, vol. 14, pp. 325-340, 2000.
15. A. Stranieri, J. Zeleznikow & J. Yearwood, Argumentation structures that integrate dialectical and non-dialectical reasoning, Knowledge Engineering Review, vol. 16, pp. 331-348, 2001.
16. J. Yearwood and A. Stranieri, "The Generic Actual Argument Model of practical reasoning, " Decision Support Systems, vol. 41, pp. 358-379, 2006.
17. A. Stranieri, J. Zeleznikow, M. Gawler, and B. Lewis, Bryn, "A hybridneural approach to the automation of legal reasoning in the discretionary domain of family law in Australia, " Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 7, pp. 53-183, 1999.
18. J. Zeleznikow, A. Stranieri, and M. Gawler, "Split-Up: A legal expert system which determines property division upon divorce, " Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 3, pp. 267-275, 1996.
19. J. Hall, D. Calabro, T. Sourdin, A. Stranieri, and J. Zeleznikow, "Supporting discretionary decision making with information technology: a case study in the criminal sentencing jurisdiction, " University of Ottawa Law and Technology Journal, vol. 2(1), pp. 1-36, 2005.