Argumentation and standards of proof Atkinson, Katie; Bench-Capon, Trevor
International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law; 04-08 June 2007,
06/2007
Conference Proceeding
In this paper we examine some previous AI and Law attempts to characterise standards of proof, and relate these to the notions of acceptability found in argumentation frameworks, an approach which ...forms the basis of much recent work on argumentation. We distinguish between the justification of facts and the justication of choices relating to the law and its interpretation. Standards of proof most naturally arise in connection with facts, but points of law have analogous degrees of justification.
Environmentalists have advocated the Precautionary Principle (PP) to help guide public and private decisions about the environment. By contrast, industry and its spokesmen have opposed this. There is ...not one principle, but many that have been recommendedfor this purpose. Despite the attractiveness of a core idea in all versions of the principle--that decision-makers should take some precautionary steps to ensure that threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment and public health do not materialize into harm--even one of the most widely endorsed principles needs considerable specification and refinement before it can be used. Moreover, the PP is an approach or guide to utilizing scientific evidence in social or legal decision-making contexts. In this it does not differ in kind from other approaches to using factual information such as in the law. The law provides some models for different strategies to guide decision-making under uncertainty when factual issues cannot be resolved with certainty. These in turn can help guide the formulation of different versions of PP and help clarify some presuppositions of the principle. Once some plausible versions of PP are articulated, I suggest some applications to existing environmental problems.
Prosecuting those arrested for the unlawful possession, distribution or importation of illicit drugs, such as powder cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin and LSD, is usually both time-consuming and ...expensive, primarily because of the need to determine "beyond a reasonable doubt" the total amount of drugs seized in each case. Accuracy is important since penalties (imprisonment or fines) depend upon the quantity seized. Substantial backlogs in processing drug cases often develop as a result. In some jurisdictions, complete testing and analysis of all substances seized from a defendant are customary in support of a case, while in other jurisdictions random sampling of drugs and the subsequent presentation of an estimate of the total amount seized have been used for many years. Due to pressure from crime laboratories and prosecutors, who point to major increases in their caseloads as well as a trend toward decreasing funding and staffing for the crime laboratories, jurisdictions which currently carry out a complete census of all seized evidence are now seriously considering a change in their methodology with a view to instituting new guidelines for the scientific sampling of evidence. In this article, we discuss the statistical and legal issues that have arisen in cases involving illicit drugs.
While many European justice systems distinguish between possession of and trafficking in illicit drugs, sentencing in drug cases in those countries tends not to depend (at least formally) upon the ...quantity of drugs seized from a defendant, but rather on the circumstances in which the defendant was found with drugs. Courts in the United States, on the other hand, penalize those convicted of drug crimes through an elaborate system of sentencing rules and guidelines. These sentences depend only upon the amount of drugs (possibly adjusted for circumstances) and the defendant's criminal history. Because of the enormous amount of work needed to determine drug type and quantity in each case, sampling the evidence and estimates of drug quantity have been accepted in most courts in the United States. During the last two years, several major developments in U.S. federal sentencing have taken place. It all started in June 2000 with the Supreme Court case Apprendi v. New Jersey, in which Justice O'Connor, in dissent, termed a "watershed in constitutional law". Prior to Apprendi, a judge would sentence a convicted drug trafficker to imprisonment using the preponderance standard of proof on the quantities of drugs seized. The effect of Apprendi is to make more juries decide the quantity of drugs by the reasonable doubt standard. Although Apprendi had nothing to do with illicit drugs, the implication now is that all federal sentencing protocols are under revision. Since Apprendi was decided, huge numbers of cases involving convicted drug traffickers have relied upon its reasoning on appeal, with the result that a ruling from the Supreme Court on further clarification of this issue is expected. This article discusses the impact so far of Apprendi on statistical issues involved in estimating total drug quantity and considers possible future directions under the changing protocols. /// Alors que de nombreux systèmes judiciaires européens font la distinction entre la possession et le trafic de drogues illicites, les condamnations dans les affaires de drogue dans ces pays ont tendance à ne pas dépendre (au moins formellement) de la quantité de drogue saisie sur un inculpé, mais plutôt des circonstances dans lesquelles on a trouvé de la drogue sur lui. Les cours des Etats-Unis, à l'inverse, condamnent les personnes reconnues coupables de crimes de drogue selon un système élaboré de règles et de directives. Les peines dépendent seulement de la quantité de drogue (éventuellement ajustée selon les circonstances) et du casier judiciaire du prévenu. En raison de l'énorme quantité de travail nécessaire pour déterminer le type et la quantité de drogue dans chaque cas, la plupart des cours des Etats-Unis acceptent l'échantillonnage de la preuve et des estimations de la quantité de drogue. Pendant les deux dernières années, plusieurs développements majeurs ont eu lieu dans les sentences fédérales. Cela a commencé en juin 2000 avec le cas de la Cour Suprême "Apprendi v. New Jersey", dans lequel le juge O'Connor employa le terme de "grand tournant dans la loi constitutionnelle". Avant Apprendi, un juge condamnait un trafiquant de drogue à la prison en se fondant principalement sur la quantité de drogue saisie. L'effet d'Apprendi est de faire décider plus de jurys de la quantité de drogue selon le "standard du moindre doute". Bien qu' Apprendi n'ait rien à voir avec les drogues illicites, l'implication actuelle est que tous les protocoles fédéraux de condamnation sont en cours de révision. Depuis qu' Apprendi fut décidé, son raisonnement est utilisé en appel dans de très nombreux cas concernant des trafiquants de drogue reconnus coupables, à tel point que l'on attend un règlement de la Cour Suprême pour clarifier davantage cette question. Cet article discute l'impact d'Apprendi sur les aspects statistiques concernant l'estimation de la quantité totale de drogue et étudie de possibles directions futures pour les protocoles en cours de changement.
Considers action's impact and intent as proof; analyzes language, purpose, and legislative history of civil rights statutes; and concludes that the Supreme Court will likely require proof of intent ...to sustain a prima facie case of discrimination. Available from San Diego Law Review Association, University of San Diego School of Law, San Diego, California 92110; sc $4.00. (Author/PGD)
This thesis examines causation standards traditionally applied to claims brought for personal injury resulting from toxic torts. The background and unique nature of the area of toxic torts are ...examined to determine why traditional rules of causation often bring inequitable results. Models for new causation standards are discussed that propose different rules in an attempt to more accurately meet the realities of claims that do not fit well under the existing tort structure. Recent case law is reviewed to determine whether the judiciary is modifying toxic tort causation standards or if it continues to apply traditional tort rules to such claims. The author concludes that courts are reluctant to carve out different standards to accommodate the complex nature of these claims.
O ensaio afirma a descoberta da verdade como condição imprescindível para a efetividade da jurisdição, e, consequentemente, do Direito. Admitindo a impossibilidade de obtenção de verdade absoluta, ...apresentam-se os principais modelos de constatação de provas, relacionando critérios metodológicos para a eleição do standard mais adequado a cada tipo de processo. Como resultado, conclui-se que o modelo da probabilidade prevalente é o mais adequado para julgamento de ações de improbidade administrativa. Defende-se, por fim, que os mesmos argumentos levam à utilização do standard da probabilidade prevalente à perda de bens incompatível com o patrimônio do criminoso, recentemente incluída no Código Penal. Palavras-chave: standards probatórios. Improbidade administrativa e confisco alargado. Probabilidade prevalente.
PDF
