Twelve angry men or one good woman? Asymmetric relations in evidentiary reasoning

Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 255-282

  Schafer, Burkhard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900113600     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (54)

1. Asimov, M. (2007), '12 Angry Men: A revisionist view', Chicago-Kent Law Review 82, 711-17.
2. Bentham, J. (1808), Scotch Reform, reprinted in J. Bowring (ed.) (1838-1843), The Works Of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 5 (Edinburgh: William Tait; Simpkin, Marshall & Company), pp. 1-53.
3. Bex, F.J. and Prakken, H. (2004), 'Reinterpreting Arguments in Dialogue: An Application to Evidential Reasoning', in Gordon (ed.).
4. Bex, F.J. and Prakken, H., Reed C. and Walton, D.N. (2003), 'Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalisations', Artificial Intelligence and Law 11, 125-65.
5. Bex, F.J. and Prakken, H. and Verheij, B. (2006), 'Anchored Narratives in Reasoning about Evidence', in Van Engers (ed.).
6. Boolos, G.S., Burgess J. P. and Jeffrey, R.C. (2002), Computability and Logic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
7. Boolos, G.S., Burgess J. P. and Jeffrey, R.C. (2007), 'Formalising argumentative story-based analysis of evidence', in Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Stanford (New York: ACM Press), pp. 1-10.
8. Clermont, K.M. and Sherwin, E.A. (2002), 'Comparative view of standards of proof', The American Journal of Comparative Law 50, 243-75.
9. Corker, D. (1996), Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings (London, Sweet & Maxwell).
10. Damaska, M. (2003), 'Epistemology and legal regulation of proof', Law, Probability and Risk 2, 117-30.
11. Draper, A. (2004), 'Corruptions in the administration of justice: Bentham's critique of civil procedure', Journal of Bentham Studies 7.
12. Duff, P. (2007), 'Disclosure in Scottish criminal procedure: Another step in an inquisitorial direction?', International Journal of Evidence and Proof 11, 153-80.
13. Dunne, P.E. and Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (eds) (2006), Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006 (Amsterdam: IOS Press).
14. Engers, T.M. van (ed.) (2006), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Jurix 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference (Amsterdam: IOS Press).
15. Ferguson, W. (2004), 'Reverse burdens of proof', Scots Law Times 22, 133.
16. Gordon, T.F. (ed.) (2004), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Jurix 2004: The Seventeenth Annual Conference (Amsterdam: IOS Press).
17. Gordon, T.F. and Walton, D.N. (2006), 'The Carneades Argumentation Framework: Using Presumptions and Exceptions to Model Critical Questions', in Dunne and Bench-Capon (eds).
18. Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H. and Walton, D.N. (2007), 'The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof', Artificial Intelligence 171, 875-96.
19. Harding, S. (ed.) (1976), Can Theories Be Refuted?: Essays on the Duhem-Quine Thesis (Berlin: Springer).
20. Jackson, J., Langer, M. and Tillers, P. (eds) (2008), Crime, Procedure, and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context (London: Hart Publishing).
21. Keppens, J. and Schafer, B. (2004) 'Murdered by Persons Unknown. Speculative Reasoning in Law and Logic', in Gordon (ed.).
22. Keppens, J. and Schafer, B. (2006), 'Knowledge based crime scenario modelling', Expert Systems With Applications 30, 203-22.
23. Koppen, P.J. van and Roos, N.H.M. (eds) (2000), Rationality, Information and Progress in Law and Psychology. Liber Amicorum Hans F. Crombag (Maastricht: Metajuridica Publications).
24. Lakatos, I. (1976), 'Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes', in Harding (ed.).
25. McCord, D. (1996), 'But Perry Mason made it look so easy! The admissibility of evidence offered by a criminal defendant to suggest that someone else is guilty', Tennessee Law Review 63, 917.
26. Ogloff, J.R.P. (1991), 'A comparison of insanity defense standards on juror decision making', Law and Human Behavior 15, 509-31.
27. Orman Quine, W. van (1951), 'Two dogmas of empiricism', The Philosophical Review 60, 20-43.
28. Plotnikoff, J. and Woolfson, R. (2001), '"A fair balance"? Evaluation of the operation of disclosure law', RDS Occasional Paper No 76 (London: Home Office), available at .
29. Pollock, J. (1992), 'How to reason defeasibly', Artificial Intelligence 57, 1-42.
30. Prakken, H. (2001), 'Modelling defeasibility in law: logic or procedure?', Fundamenta Informaticae 48, 253-71.
31. Prakken, H. (forthcoming), 'A Formal Model of Adjudication', in Rahman (ed.).
32. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (2006), 'Presumptions and Burdens of Proof', in Van Engers (ed.).
33. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (2007), 'Formalising Arguments about the Burden of Persuasion', Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (New York: ACM Press), pp. 97-106.
34. Prakken, H., Reed, C. and Walton, D.N. (2003), 'Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations in Reasoning about Evidence', Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (New York: ACM Press), pp. 32-41.
35. Prakken, H., Reed, C. and Walton, D.N. (2005), 'Dialogues about the Burden of Proof', Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (New York: ACM Press), pp. 115-24.
36. Rahman, S. (ed.) (forthcoming), Argumentation, Logic and Law (Dordrecht: Springer Verlag).
37. Sayers, D. (2003), Gaudy Night (London: Hodder and Stoughton).
38. Stein, A. (1997), 'Against free proof', Israel Law Review 31, 573-89.
39. Stein, A. (2001), 'Of two wrongs that make a right: Two paradoxes of the evidence law and their combined economic justification', Texas Law Review 79, 1199-234.
40. Stein, A. and Bierschbach, R.A. (2007), 'Mediating rules in criminal law', Virginia Law Review 93, 1197-258.
41. Taylor, C. (2001), 'Advance disclosure: Reflections on the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996', The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 40, 114-25.
42. Thagard, P. (2005), 'Testimony, credibility and explanatory coherence', Erkenntnis 63, 295-316.
43. Tillers, P. (2008), 'Are there Universal Principles or Forms of Evidential Inference?', in Jackson et al. (eds).
44. Tillers, P. and Schum, D. (1991), 'A theory of preliminary fact investigation', UC Davis Law Review 24, 931.
45. Twining, W. (1985), Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore (London and Stanford: Stanford University Press).
46. Twining, W. (1990), Rethinking Evidence (Oxford: Blackwell).
47. Twining, W. and Hampsher-Monk, I. (eds) (2003), Evidence and Inference in History and Law (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press).
48. Verheij, B. (2000), 'Dialectical Argumentation as a Heuristic for Courtroom Decision-making', in Van Koppen and Roos (eds).
49. Verheij, B. (2003), 'Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation', Artificial Intelligence 150, 291-324.
50. Verheij, B. (2007), 'Argumentation support software: Boxes-and-arrows and beyond', Law, Probability and Risk 6, 187-208.
51. Walton, D. (2002), Legal Argumentation and Evidence (University Park, PA: Penn State Press).
52. Walton, D.N. (2005), Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law (Berlin: Kluwer).
53. Walton, D.N. (2008), Witness Testimony Evidence: Argumentation, Artificial Intelligence and Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
54. Williams, G. (1977), 'Evidential burdens on the defence', New Law Journal 127, 182.