henry prakken & giovanni sartor july 18, 2012 law logic summerschool 2012 session 3.2.1 (part...
DESCRIPTION
Dialectical status of arguments Justified: survive conflict with all counterarguments In in all labellings Overruled: defeated by justified argument Out in all labellings Defensible: neither justified not overruledTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor July 18, 2012 Law Logic Summerschool 2012 Session 3.2.1 (Part 2): Burdens of proof and presumptions](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b127f8b9ab059990151/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Henry Prakken & Giovanni SartorJuly 18, 2012
Law Logic Summerschool 2012Session 3.2.1 (Part 2):Burdens of proof and
presumptions
![Page 2: Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor July 18, 2012 Law Logic Summerschool 2012 Session 3.2.1 (Part 2): Burdens of proof and presumptions](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b127f8b9ab059990151/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Burdens of proof (legally) Burden of persuasion for P: who loses in
the end if the evidence on P is balanced? Burden of production for P: who loses on
P if no evidence for P is provided during a proceeding?
Tactical burden: who would likely lose on P if the present stage were the final stage?
![Page 3: Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor July 18, 2012 Law Logic Summerschool 2012 Session 3.2.1 (Part 2): Burdens of proof and presumptions](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b127f8b9ab059990151/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Dialectical status of arguments
Justified: survive conflict with all counterarguments In in all labellings
Overruled: defeated by justified argument Out in all labellings
Defensible: neither justified not overruled
![Page 4: Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor July 18, 2012 Law Logic Summerschool 2012 Session 3.2.1 (Part 2): Burdens of proof and presumptions](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b127f8b9ab059990151/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Defining burden of proof (formally)
Burden of persuasion for P = task to have a justified argument for P in the final stage
Does not shift Burden of production for P = task to construct a sensible argument
for P during the initial stage at which P becomes relevant Does not shift
Tactical burden on P: do something to make your favoured outcome on P likely if the
resulting stage were the final stage Can shift any number of times
Argumentation logic is applied to each stage in a proceeding
![Page 5: Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor July 18, 2012 Law Logic Summerschool 2012 Session 3.2.1 (Part 2): Burdens of proof and presumptions](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b127f8b9ab059990151/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Burdens of proof:example
Prosecution has burden of persuasion for Murder, Killing and Intent
Murder
Killing Intent Rule
1
R1: If Killing & Intent then MurderR2:If Selfdefence then not R1
![Page 6: Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor July 18, 2012 Law Logic Summerschool 2012 Session 3.2.1 (Part 2): Burdens of proof and presumptions](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b127f8b9ab059990151/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Burdens of proof:example
Prosecution has burden of persuasion for Murder, Killing and Intent
Murder
Killing Intent Rule
1 Defence has tactical burden to do something, and burden of production for Selfdefence
R1: If Killing & Intent then MurderR2:If Selfdefence then not R1
![Page 7: Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor July 18, 2012 Law Logic Summerschool 2012 Session 3.2.1 (Part 2): Burdens of proof and presumptions](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b127f8b9ab059990151/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Burdens of proof:example
Prosecution has tactical burden to
do something, and
burden of persuasion
against Selfdefence
Murder
Killing Intent Rule
1 Selfdefence Rule 2
Exception to Rule 1
R1: If Killing & Intent then MurderR2:If Selfdefence then not R1
![Page 8: Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor July 18, 2012 Law Logic Summerschool 2012 Session 3.2.1 (Part 2): Burdens of proof and presumptions](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b127f8b9ab059990151/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Burdens of proof:example
Murder
Kill Intent Rule 1 Selfdefence Rule 2
Exception to Rule 1
No selfdefence
Prosecution hasburden of persuasionagainst Selfdefence
![Page 9: Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor July 18, 2012 Law Logic Summerschool 2012 Session 3.2.1 (Part 2): Burdens of proof and presumptions](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b127f8b9ab059990151/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Burdens of proof:example
Murder
Kill Intent Rule 1 Selfdefence Rule 2
Exception to Rule 1
No selfdefence
Prosecution hasburden of persuasionagainst Selfdefence
so must strictly defeat
Proof standard captured in bandwith for mutual defeat
![Page 10: Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor July 18, 2012 Law Logic Summerschool 2012 Session 3.2.1 (Part 2): Burdens of proof and presumptions](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b127f8b9ab059990151/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Presumptions: not used to allocate but to fulfill burden of
proofR1: If Damaged & Owner then Compensation
Possession creates a legal presumption for ownership
![Page 11: Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor July 18, 2012 Law Logic Summerschool 2012 Session 3.2.1 (Part 2): Burdens of proof and presumptions](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b127f8b9ab059990151/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Owner
Compensation
Damaged
Possession
Presumptions:they are defeasible
conditionals
e2
R1
R2
R1: If Damaged & Owner then CompensationR2: If Possession then Owner
e1
![Page 12: Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor July 18, 2012 Law Logic Summerschool 2012 Session 3.2.1 (Part 2): Burdens of proof and presumptions](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b127f8b9ab059990151/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Owner
Compensation
Damaged
e1 Possession No Possession
e3
Their antecedent must be proven
e2
R1
R2
R1: If Damaged & Owner then CompensationR2: If Possession then Owner
![Page 13: Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor July 18, 2012 Law Logic Summerschool 2012 Session 3.2.1 (Part 2): Burdens of proof and presumptions](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b127f8b9ab059990151/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Owner
Compensation
Damaged
e1 Possession No Possession
e3e2
R1
R2
R1: If Damaged & Owner then CompensationR2: If Possession then Owner
![Page 14: Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor July 18, 2012 Law Logic Summerschool 2012 Session 3.2.1 (Part 2): Burdens of proof and presumptions](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b127f8b9ab059990151/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Owner
Compensation
Damaged
e1 Possession
R3:
They cannot be used after counterevidence
e2
R1
R2
Not Owner
e4
R1: If Damaged & Owner then CompensationR2: If Possession then OwnerR3: If e4 then R2 does not apply
n.a.R2
![Page 15: Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor July 18, 2012 Law Logic Summerschool 2012 Session 3.2.1 (Part 2): Burdens of proof and presumptions](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b127f8b9ab059990151/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Owner
Compensation
Damaged
e1
Not Owner
e4
Now real evidence is needed
R1
e5
![Page 16: Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor July 18, 2012 Law Logic Summerschool 2012 Session 3.2.1 (Part 2): Burdens of proof and presumptions](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b127f8b9ab059990151/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Summary Various notions of burdens and
standards of proof can be defined in terms of defeasible argumentation But dynamic setting is needed
Presumptions can be logically understood as defeasible conditionals Not used to allocate but to fulfill proof
burdens