Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence: A Formal Hybrid Theory

304 Pages·2011·2.36 MB·English

by  Floris J. Bex (auth.)

ARGUMENTS,STORIESANDCRIMINALEVIDENCE
Law and Philosophy Library
VOLUME92
SeriesEditors:
FRANCISCOJ.LAPORTA,DepartmentofLaw,
AutonomousUniversityofMadrid,Spain
FREDERICKSCHAUER,SchoolofLaw,UniversityofVirginia,U.S.A.
TORBENSPAAK,UppsalaUniversity,Sweden
FormerSeriesEditors:
AULISAARNIO,MICHAELD.BAYLES†,CONRADD.JOHNSON†,
ALANMABE,ALEKSANDERPECZENIK†
EditorialAdvisoryBoard:
AULISAARNIO,SecretaryGeneraloftheTampereClub,Finland
HUMBERTOÁVILA,FederalUniversityofSouthBrazil,Brazil
ZENONBANKOWSKI,CentreforLawandSociety,UniversityofEdinburgh,
UnitedKingdom
PAOLOCOMANDUCCI,UniversityofGenoa,Italy
HUGHCORDER,UniversityofCapeTown,SouthAfrica
DAVIDDYZENHAUS,UniversityofToronto,Canada
ERNESTOGARZÓNVALDÉS,InstitutfürPolitikwissenschaft,Johannes
GutenbergUniversitat,Mainz,Germany
RICCARDOGUASTINI,UniversityofGenoa,Italy
JOHNKLEINIG,DepartmentofLaw,PoliceScienceandCriminalJustice
Administration,JohnJayCollegeofCriminalJustice,CityUniversityofNewYork,
U.S.A.
PATRICIAMINDUS,UniversitàDegliStudidiTorino,Italy
YASUTOMOMORIGIWA,NagoyaUniversity,JapanandUniversityof
Edinburgh,UnitedKingdom
GIOVANNIBATTISTARATTI,“JuandelaCierva”FellowinLaw,Facultyof
Law,UniversityofGirona,Spain
WOJCIECHSADURSKI,EuropeanUniversityInstitute,DepartmentofLaw,
Florence,Italy
HORACIOSPECTOR,UniversidadTorcuatoDiTella,Argentina
ROBERTS.SUMMERS,SchoolofLaw,CornellUniversity,U.S.A.
MICHELTROPER,Membredel’InstitutUniversitairedeFrance,France
CARLWELLMAN,DepartmentofPhilosophy,WashingtonUniversity,U.S.A.
Forfurthervolumes:
http://www.springer.com/series/6210
ARGUMENTS, STORIES
AND CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE
A Formal Hybrid Theory
by
Floris J. Bex
UniversityofDundee,UK
123
FlorisJ.Bex
UniversityofDundee
SchoolofComputing
DD14HNDundee
UnitedKingdom
fl[email protected]
ISSN1572-4395
ISBN978-94-007-0139-7 e-ISBN978-94-007-0140-3
DOI10.1007/978-94-007-0140-3
SpringerDordrechtHeidelbergLondonNewYork
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2010938619
©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2011
Nopartofthisworkmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmittedinanyformorby
anymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,microfilming,recordingorotherwise,withoutwritten
permissionfromthePublisher,withtheexceptionofanymaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthepurpose
ofbeingenteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthework.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)
Preface
Thisbookisbasedonmy2009Doctoraldissertation“EvidenceforaGoodStory–
AHybridTheoryofArguments,StoriesandCriminalEvidence”.Thisdissertation
was written while working on the project Making Sense of Evidence, in which a
theoretically sound sense-making and visualization tool for Dutch police analysts
hasbeendeveloped.DuringtheprojectIworkedattheCentreforLawandICTat
theUniversityofGroningen.IamgratefultomysupervisorsHenryPrakken,Bart
VerheijandPetervanKoppen.Iowemuchtotheknowledgeandadvicetheyhave
sharedwithmeovertheyears.IalsothankJohn-JulesMeyer,ArendSoetemanand
William Twining for taking the time to read, assess and comment on my disserta-
tion. Furthermore, I thank Susan van den Braak, Gerard Vreeswijk and Herre van
Oostendorp,whoworkedontheprojectattheUniversityofUtrechtandwhohave
providedimportantfeedbackbyimplementingandtestingthesense-makingsystem
AVERS.
Ithankeveryonewho,overtheyears,hasshownaninterestinandcommentedon
mywork.Theargumentation,evidenceandtheAIandLawcommunitiesIthankfor
the interesting and fruitful conferences and discussions. In particular, I would like
to mention Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, Tom van Engers, Tom Gordon,
JeroenKeppens,ChrisReed,BurkhardSchaferandDouglasWalton.
Dundee,UK FlorisJ.Bex
July2010
v
ThisisBlankPageIntegra vi
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 RationalTheoriesoftheProcessofProof . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 MakingSenseofEvidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 ReasoningwithEvidenceinArtificialIntelligenceandLaw . . . . 5
1.4 ResearchGoals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5 BookOutline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2 ReasoningwithCriminalEvidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1 Facts,EvidenceandGeneralKnowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.1 FactaProbandaandFactaExplananda . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.2 Evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.3 GeneralKnowledgeandGeneralizations . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2 TheProcessofProof:Discovery,PursuitandJustification . . . . . 20
2.2.1 Investigation,TrialandtheProcessofProof . . . . . . . . 23
2.3 ReasoningintheProcessofProof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3.1 AbductiveReasoningandInferencetotheBestExplanation 25
2.3.2 CausalReasoningwithEvidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.3.3 ReasoningAboutMotivesandActions . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3 TwoApproachestoReasoningwithEvidence:Arguments
andStories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.1 EvidentialArguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.1.1 TheStructureofEvidentialArguments . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.1.2 The Dialectical Nature of Argumentation:
AttackandDefeat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.1.3 Generalizations and General Knowledge
inEvidentialReasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.1.4 SummaryandEvaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.2 Stories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.2.1 TheCausalStructureofStories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.2.2 EpisodicStructuresandStorySchemes. . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.2.3 ExplainingtheEvidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.2.4 ChoosingtheBestExplanatoryStoryfortheEvidence. . . 73
3.2.5 SummaryandEvaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
vii
viii Contents
4 AHybridTheoryofStoriesandArguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.1 CombiningStoriesandArguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.2 EvidentialSupport,ContradictionandGaps . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.3 StoryCoherenceintheHybridApproach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.3.1 ThePlausibilityandConsistencyofaStory . . . . . . . . 90
4.3.2 TheCompletenessofaStory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.4 AssessingandComparingStories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.4.1 ComparingStories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.4.2 AGameforInquiryDialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.5 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5 AFormalLogicalHybridTheoryofArgumentationandExplanation 101
5.1 ADefeasibleLogic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.2 AFormalTheoryforArgumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.2.1 ADefeasibleLogicforEvidentialArguments . . . . . . . 109
5.2.2 EvidentialArguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.2.3 AttackingArguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.2.4 DefeatandtheStatusofArguments . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
5.3 AFormalTheoryforExplanatoryStories . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.3.1 ACausalTheoryforExplanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.3.2 CausalStories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.3.3 StoriesasExplanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.3.4 StorySchemes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
5.4 AHybridTheoryofArgumentationandExplanation . . . . . . . 132
5.4.1 SupportingandContradictingStories . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
5.4.2 TheCoherenceofStories:PlausibilityandImplausibility . 136
5.4.3 TheCoherenceofStories:StorySchemesandCompleteness 138
5.4.4 AssessingandComparingStories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.5 DialoguesAboutProof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
5.5.1 FrameworkforaFormalDialogueGame . . . . . . . . . . 142
5.5.2 Players,LanguageandMoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
5.5.3 TheHybridTheoryinaDialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5.5.4 Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.5.5 ComparingExplanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
5.5.6 CurrentWinnerandTurntaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
5.5.7 TheProtocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
5.6 AnExampleoftheDialogueGame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
5.7 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
6 CaseStudy:MurderinAnjum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
6.1 TheMurderofLeodeJager. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
6.1.1 Before the 24th: The Cannabis-Growing
OperationandBankFraud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
6.1.2 TheEvidenceintheInvestigationintoLeo’sDeath . . . . 167
Contents ix
6.2 An Analysis of the Case: Constructing Stories
andArguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
6.3 CauseofDeath,MurderWeaponandLeo’sState . . . . . . . . . 178
6.3.1 TheMurderWeapon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
6.3.2 TheLocationWhereLeoDied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
6.3.3 Leo’sDruggedState. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
6.3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
6.3.5 InitialEvaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
6.4 TheJudiciary’sView:MarjanDruggedandKilledLeo . . . . . . 193
6.4.1 Marjan’sMotivesforDruggingLeo . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
6.4.2 Marjan’sMotivesforLeo’sDeath . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
6.4.3 Leo’sDeathandtheEventsAfterwards. . . . . . . . . . . 205
6.4.4 SummaryoftheImprovedJudiciary’sStory . . . . . . . . 213
6.5 AlternativestotheJudiciary’sStory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
6.5.1 LeoTooktheTemazepamHimself . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
6.5.2 BeekmanAstheKiller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
6.6 ComparingtheAlternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
6.7 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
7 Related Research on Reasoning with Criminal
Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
7.1 ReasoningwithStories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
7.1.1 BennettandFeldmanandPenningtonandHastie . . . . . 230
7.1.2 TheAnchoredNarrativesTheory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
7.1.3 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
7.2 WigmoreandtheNewEvidenceTheorists . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
7.2.1 WigmoreandtheScienceofJudicialProof . . . . . . . . . 240
7.2.2 ModifiedWigmoreanAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
7.2.3 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
7.3 TheoreticalModelsofInferencetotheBestExplanation . . . . . 250
7.3.1 Thagard’sExplanatoryCoherence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
7.3.2 Josephson’sLogicalModelofAbduction. . . . . . . . . . 251
7.3.3 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
7.4 Keppens and Colleagues’ Decision Support System
forPoliceInvestigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
7.4.1 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
7.5 ProbabilisticReasoningandBayesianBeliefNetworks . . . . . . 256
7.5.1 Kadane and Schum’s Analysis of the Sacco
andVanzettiCase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
7.5.2 BayesianBeliefNetworksandSensitivityAnalysis . . . . 259
7.5.3 EvaluationofBayesianApproaches . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
8.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265