Law, Probability and Risk Advance Access originally published online on August 13, 2007
Law, Probability and Risk 2007 6(1-4):169-185; doi:10.1093/lpr/mgm008
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Argumentation, stories and generalizations: a comment
Faculty of Laws, University College London, 4 Endsleigh Gardens, London WC1HOEG, UK and School of Law, University of Miami, 1311 Miller Drive, Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA
Postal address: 10 Mill Lane, Iffley, Oxford OX4 4EJ, UK. Email: wlt{at}twining.uk.net
Received on 9 April 2007. Accepted on 30 April 2007.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
The underlying theory of the software program described in ‘Sense-Making Software for Criminal Investigation’ (Bex et al., 2007) complements modified Wigmorean analysis (MWA). Both adopt a qualitative rather than a quantitative approach. MWA is broadly compatible with the kind of logic involved, including abductive inference to the best explanation and the idea of defeasible argumentation. Both approaches are mainly valuable as aids to thinking, especially constructing and evaluating arguments, rather than as methods of presenting them in order to persuade. Both approaches can be applied at different stages of criminal investigation (and more broadly of legal processes), but the specific device of Wigmore charts (one part of MWA) is more useful in hypothesis testing and discarding than in hypothesis formation, which typically requires imaginative reasoning. The Anchored Narratives of Crombag et al. and MWA have similar theoretical assumptions, except that MWA gives a radically different account about the relationship between stories, generalizations and argument. The proposed program has considerable promise, but before it can be of positive practical value in police investigation, more attention needs to be given not only to the obvious dangers of using stories and generalizations in this context but also about what positive guidance can be given to mitigate these dangers. There is, however, an unresolved tension between the simplifying tendencies of formalized computer programming and the tendency of MWA to emphasize the complexities of practical inferential reasoning and argumentation in legal contexts.
Keywords: criminal investigation; software; evidence; argumentation; inferential reasoning; abduction; anchored narratives; Wigmore charts; modified Wigmorean analysis; stories; generalizations; police training
Comment on BEX, F., VAN DEN BRAAK, S., VAN OOSTENDORP, H., PRAKKEN, H., VERHEIJ, B. AND VREESWIJK, G. (2007) Sense-Making Software for Crime Investigation: How to Combine Stories and Arguments? Law, Probability and Risk, 5.
Presented at the workshop on ‘Graphic and visual representations of evidence and inference in legal settings’ at Cardozo School of Law, New York City, 28–29 January 2007.