×

zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Modelling last-act attempted crime in criminal law. (English) Zbl 1423.68485
Summary: In the court of law, a person can be punished for attempting to commit a crime. An open issue in the study of Artificial Intelligence and Law is whether the law of attempts could be formally modelled. There are distinct legal rules for determining attempted crime whereas the last-act rule (also called proximity rule) represents the strictest approach. In this paper, we provide a formal model of the last-act rule using structured argumentation.
MSC:
68T27 Logic in artificial intelligence
PDF BibTeX XML Cite
Full Text: DOI
References:
[1] Allen, M., Textbook on criminal law (2011), Oxford: OUP, Oxford
[2] Andenaes, J., General part of the criminal law of Norway (1965), Littleton, Co: Fred B Rothman & Co, Littleton, Co
[3] ArtikisA., SergotM., & PaliourasG. (2014). Reactive reasoning with the event calculus. In Proceedings of the 21st international workshop on reactive concepts in knowledge representation (ReactKnow 2014) (pp. 9-15). Prague, Czech Republic, August 18-22.
[4] ArtikisA., SergotM., & PaliourasG. (2015). An event calculus for event recognition. In IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering (pp. 895-908).
[5] BaralC., & GelfondM. (2005). Reasoning about intended actions. In Proceedings of the 20th national conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 689-694). AAAI Press.
[6] Becker, C. L., Criminal attempt and the theory of the law of crimes, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 3, 262-294 (1974)
[7] Bex, F. J., Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: A formal hybrid theory (2011), Dordrecht: Springer, Dordrecht
[8] Bex, F. J.; Prakken, H.; Reed, C.; Walton, D. N., Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalisations, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 125-165 (2003)
[9] BlountJ., & GelfondM. (2012). Reasoning about the intentions of agents. In Logic programs, norms and action, volume 7360 of lecture notes in computer science (pp. 147-171). Berlin: Springer.
[10] BochmanA. (2018). Actual causality in a logical setting. In Proceedings of the twenty-seventh international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1730-1736).
[11] Bondarenko, A.; Dung, P. M.; Kowalski, R.; Toni, F., An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning, Artificial Intelligence, 90, 63-101 (1997) · Zbl 1017.03511
[12] Cohen, P. R.; Levesque, H. J., Intention is choice with commitment, Artificial Intelligence, 42, 213-261 (1990) · Zbl 0721.03017
[13] Colvin, E., Causation in criminal law, Bond Law Review, 1, 2, 253-271 (1989)
[14] Commonwealth v. Niziolek (1980). 380 Mass. 513, 528. Retrieved from http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/380/380mass513.html
[15] Duff, R. A., Criminal attempts (1996), Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford
[16] DungP. M. (1993). Representing actions in logic programming and its applications in database updates. In Proceedings of the tenth international conference on logic programming (pp. 222-238). MIT Press.
[17] Dung, P. M., An argumentation theoretic foundation for logic programming, Journal of Logic Programming, 22, 151-177 (1995) · Zbl 0816.68045
[18] Dung, P. M., On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321-357 (1995) · Zbl 1013.68556
[19] Dung, P. M.; Kowalski, R.; Toni, F., Dialectic proof procedure for assumption based admissible argumentation, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 170, 2-3, 114-159 (2006) · Zbl 1131.68103
[20] Dung, P. M.; Sartor, G., The modular logic of private international law, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 19, 2-3, 233-261 (2011)
[21] DungP. M., & ThangP. M. (2008). Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract. In JURIX08, frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (pp. 108-117). IOS Press.
[22] Dung, P. M.; Thang, P. M.; Hung, N. D., Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines of performance relief, Argument & Computational Journal, 1, 47-69 (2010)
[23] Dunne, P. E.; Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Coherence in finite argument systems, Artificial Intelligence, 141, 187-203 (2002) · Zbl 1043.68098
[24] Fletcher, G. P., Basic concepts of criminal law (1998), Oxford: Oxford University Press, Oxford
[25] GaertnerD., & ToniF. (2008). Hybrid argumentation and its properties. In Proceedings of the 2008 conference on computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008 (pp. 183-195). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
[26] GelfondM., & BaralC. (2000). Reasoning agents in dynamic domains. In Logic-based artificial intelligence (pp. 257-279). Springer US.
[27] Gelfond, M.; Lifschitz, V., Representing action and change by logic programs, The Journal of Logic Programming, 17, 301-321 (1993) · Zbl 0783.68024
[28] Gelfond, M.; Lifschitz, V., Action languages, Electronic Transactions on AI, 3, 195-210 (1998)
[29] GordonT. F., & WaltonD. N. (2006). The carneades argumentation framework – using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In Proceedings of the first international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA-06).
[30] Hadjisoteriou, E.; Kakas, A., Argumentation and the event calculus, Logic Programs, Norms and Action, 7360, 103-122 (2012) · Zbl 1356.68217
[31] Hage, J. C., Reasoning with rules: An essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic (1997), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
[32] HalpernY. J. (2015). A modification of the Halpern-Pearl definition of causality. In International conference on principles and practice of multi-agent systems (pp. 20-39). Springer International.
[33] Halpern, Y. J., Actual causality (2016), Cambridge: MIT Press, Cambridge · Zbl 1370.03004
[34] Halpern, Y. J.; Pearl, J., Causes and explanations: A structural-model approach part I: Causes, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56, 843-887 (2005) · Zbl 1092.03003
[35] Horty, J. F., Rules and reasons in the theory of precedent, Legal Theory, 10, 1-33 (2011)
[36] Kowalski, R.; Sergot, M., A logic-based calculus of events, New Generation Computing, 4, 67-95 (1986) · Zbl 1356.68221
[37] Lafave, W. R., Criminal law (2017), St. Paul, MN: West Academic, St. Paul, MN
[38] Liepina, R.; Sartor, G.; Wyner, A., Arguing about causes in law: A semi-formal framework for causal arguments, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1-21 (2019)
[39] Lorini, E.; Herzig, A., A logic of intention and attempt, Synthese, 163, 45-77 (2008) · Zbl 1152.03008
[40] Pearl, J., Causality: Models, reasoning and inference (2009), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge · Zbl 1188.68291
[41] Prakken, H., Logical tools for modelling legal argument: A study of defeasible reasoning in law (1997), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
[42] Prakken, H.; Sartor, G., Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6, 231-287 (1998)
[43] Prakken, H.; Sartor, G., Law and logic: A review from an argumentation perspective, Artificial Intelligence, 227, 214-245 (2015) · Zbl 1346.68187
[44] RaoA. S., & GeorgeffM. P. (1991). Modelling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In Proceedings of the second international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann.
[45] Rex v. Scofield (1784). Cald 397, 403. Retrieved from http://www.okcca.net/online/oujis/oujisrvr.jsp?oc=OUJI-CR%202-14
[46] R v. Eagleton (1855). 6 Cox C.C. 559. Retrieved from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-law/criminal-law-keyedto-lafave/attempts/regina-v-eagleton/ and http://swarb.co.uk/lisc/Crime18491899.php
[47] R v. Stephenson (1979). EWCA Crim 1. Retrieved from http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1979/1.html
[48] Sanstrom v. Montana (1979). 442 U.S. 510. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.co.th/scholar_case?case=5244531001775040757
[49] SartorG. (2018). Defeasibility in law. In Handbook of legal reasoning and argumentation (pp. 315-364). Springer.
[50] ShanahanM. (1999). The event calculus explained. Artificial intelligence today (pp. 409-430). Springer-Verlag.
[51] State v. Wilkinson (1998). 724 so.2d 614. Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1265311.html
[52] SWI-Prolog Foreign Language Interface (2019). Retrieved from http://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?section=foreign
[53] The U.S. Court Role (2016). Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure
[54] Verheij, B.; Bex, F.; Timmer, S. T.; Vlek, C. S.; Meyer, J-J. C.; Renooij, S.; Prakken, H., Arguments, scenarios and probabilities: Connections between three normative frameworks for evidential reasoning, Law, Probability & Risk, 15, 30-70 (2016)
[55] Williams, G. L. (1978). Textbook of criminal law (pp. 542-554). London: Stevens & Sons.
[56] Wooldridge, M., An introduction to multiagent systems (2002), New York: John Wiley & Sons, New York
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.