An Argumentation‐Based Analysis of the Simonshaven Case

In an argumentation approach, legal evidential reasoning is modeled as the construction and attack of “trees of inference” from evidence to conclusions by applying generalizations to evidence or intermediate conclusions. In this paper, an argumentation‐based analysis of the Simonshaven case is given in terms of a logical formalism for argumentation. The formalism combines abstract argumentation frameworks with accounts of the structure of arguments, of the ways they can be attacked and of ways to evaluate conflicting arguments. The purpose of this paper is not to demonstrate or argue that the argumentation approach to modeling legal evidential reasoning is feasible or even preferable but to have a fully worked‐out example that can be used in the comparison with alternative Bayesian or scenario‐based analyses

A new use case for argumentation support tools:supporting discussions of Bayesian analyses of complex criminal cases

In this paper a new use case for legal argumentation support tools is considered: supporting discussions about analyses of complex criminal cases with the help of Bayesian probability theory. By way of a case study, two actual discussions between experts in court cases are analysed on their argumentation structure. In this study the usefulness of several recognised argument schemes is confirmed, a new argument scheme for arguments from statistics are proposed, and an analysis is given of debates between experts about the validity of their arguments. From a practical point of view the case study yields insights into the design of support software for discussions about Bayesian analyses of complex criminal cases