Skip to main content

Abstract

In order to start a discussion concerning the possibility of applying AI models to judicial decisions, a necessary preliminary step is to refer to some theoretical frameworks concerning the practice of judicial decision-making and the reasonings made by judges. Of course this is not a matter of free choice or of individual preferences: what is needed is to determine which theoretical approach may produce the relatively best approximation to the empirical phenomenon of decisions made in the context of the administration of justice. This is an extremely complex and difficult problem. On the one hand, the experience of the various judicial systems (and even within a given single system) shows that judicial decision-making includes an almost infinite range of variations. The factors influencing the ways in which judicial decisions are made are numerous and include for instance the format and size of the court (single judge or panels, and so on), the composition of the court (professional and/or lay judges), several procedural rules, the factual circumstances of cases, the form and content of the substantive rules governing the case, the evidence available and the methods and standards used to decide on facts according to the proofs and to solve legal issues according to the relevant rules and principles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Branting, L.K., Lester, J.C., and Callaway, Ch.B. (1997) Automatic Judicial Document Drafting: A Unification-Based Approach. In this issue, pp 111–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christie, G.C. (1986) ‘An essay on discretion’, Duke L.J. 747.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, K., and Farley A.M. (1996) ‘A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning’, Al & Law 4, 163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. (1996) ‘A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match’, AI & Law 4, 199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski, R.A. and Toni, F: (1996) ‘Abstract Argumentation’, AI & Law 4, 275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larenz, K. and Canaris, W. (1995) Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft. 3.Aufl New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leith, Ph. (1997) The Judge and the Computer: How Best “Decision Support”? In this issue, pp. 289–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pecezenik, A. (1996) ‘Jumps and logic in the law’, AI & Law 4, 297.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1996) ‘A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning’, AI & Law 4, 331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, and 1997. Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game. In this issue, pp. 231–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roedig, J. (1969) Die Denkform der Alternative in Jurisprudenz. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, G. (1994) ‘A formal model of legal argumentation’, Ratio Juris 7, 177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, G. (1997) ‘Logic and argumentation in legal reasoning’, Current Legal Theory 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schild, U.J. (1997) Criminal Sentencing and Intelligence Decision Support. In this issue, pp. 151–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Summers, R.S. and Taruffo, M. (1991) In MacCormick, N., and Taruffo, M. (eds.), Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study, p. 461. Hants: Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taruffo, M. (1975) La motivazione della sentenza civile. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taruffo, M. (1992) Laprova deifatti giuridici. Nozioni generali. Milano: Giuffre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taruffo, M. (1994) ‘Involvement and detachment in the presentation of evidence’, in Krawietz, W., MacCormick, N., and von Wright, G.H. (eds.), Prescriptive Formality and Normative Rationality in Modern Legal Systems. Festschrift for Robert S. Summers, p. 385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taruffo, M. (1995) ‘Elementi per un’analisi del giudizio di fatto’, Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile 785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tata, C. (1977) The Application of Judicial Intelligence and “Rules” to Systems Supporting Discretionary Judicial Decision-Making. In this issue, pp. 203–230.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Taruffo, M. (1998). Judicial Decisions and Artificial Intelligence. In: Sartor, G., Branting, K. (eds) Judicial Applications of Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9010-5_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9010-5_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5136-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9010-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics