Abstract
The construction of computer systems for sentencing decision support has lately been of increasing interest. Different approaches and models exist for such systems. Of the available technologies we advocate improved access to precise statistical data, reject a rule-based expert system approach, and argue that a case-based advisory system approach could be the most acceptable. Two prototype systems we have under development and testing are described.
“There are two kinds of people in prison: those who should never have been sent there, and those who should never be let out.”
(George Bernard Shaw)
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alty, J.L. and Coombs, M.J. 1984. Expert systems. Manchester: NCC Publications.
Ashley, K.D. 1990. Modelling Legal Argument. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ashley, K.D. 1992. Case-based reasoning and its implications for legal expert systems, Artificial Intelligence and Law 1, 113–208.
Ashworth, A. 1984. Techniques of guidance on sentencing, The Criminal Law Review 519–530.
Ashworth, A. 1991. Sentence reform structures, In M. Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice -A Review of Research. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 16: 181–241.
Ashworth, A. 1992. Three techniques for reducing sentence disparity. In A. von Hirsch and A. Ashworth (eds.), Principled sentencing. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 282–290.
Ashworth, A. 1995. Sentencing and Criminal Justice. 2nd edn., London: Butterworth.
Bain, W.M. 1986. Case-based reasoning: A computer model of subjective assessment. Ph.D. thesis. Yale University.
Berman, D.H. and Hafner, CD. 1989. The potential of artificial intelligence to help solve the crisis in our legal system, Communications of the ACM 32, 928–938.
Berman, D.H. and Hafner, CD. 1995. Understanding precedents in a temporal context of evolving legal doctrine. In Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-95). College Park, MD: ACM Press, pp. 42–51.
Bing, J. 1987. Designing text retrieval systems for conceptual searching. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artficial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-87). Boston: ACM Press, pp. 43–51.
Bing, J. 1989. The law of the books and the law of the files. In G.P.V. Vandenberghe (ed.), Advanced topics of law and information technology. Amsterdam: Kluwer, pp. 151–182.
Branting, L.K. 1991. Reasoning with portions of precedents. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-91). Oxford: ACM Press, pp. 145–154.
Bratley, P., Fremont, J., Mackaay, E., and Poulin, D. 1991. Coping with change. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-91). Oxford: ACM Press, pp. 69–76.
Brooks, L.R., Allen, S.W., and Norman, G. 1989. The multiple and variable availability of familiar cases. In C. Hammond (ed.), Proceedings: Workshop on case-based reasoning (DARPA). San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 130–132.
Burrows, J., Henderson, P., and Morgan, P. 1994. Methodology: A project to improve bail decisions. Presented at: Conference of the American Society of Criminology. Miami, USA.
Chan, J. 1991. A computerized sentencing information system for New South Wales courts, Computer Law and Practice 137–150.
Chandrasekaran, B. and Mittal, S. 1982. Deep versus compiled knowledge approaches to diagnostic problem-solving, Proceedings AAAI-82. Los Altos, California: Morgan Kaufman Publishers, pp. 349–354.
Chen, H., Lynch, K.J., Basu, K., and Ng, T.D. 1993. Generating, integrating and activating thesauri for concept-based document retrieval, IEEE Expert 8(2), 25–34.
Clancey, W.J. 1983. The epistemology of a rule-based expert system — a framework for explanation, Artificial Intelligence 20: 215–251.
Davis, R., Buchanan, B., and Shortliffe, E. 1977. Production rules as a representation for a knowledge-based consultation program. Artificial Intelligence 8, 15–45.
Davis, R. and Lenat, D.B. 1982. Knowledge-based systems in artificial intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
DeMulder, R.V. and Gubby, H.M. 1983. Legal decision making by computer: An experiment with sentencing, Computer/Law Journal IV, 243–303
Denning Lord Alfred Thompson 1953. Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, 1949–53 Report, Cmd. 8932, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Dewey, J. 1924. Logical method and law, Cornell Law Quarterly 10, 17–27.
Dick, J.P. Representation of legal text for conceptual retrieval. In Proceedings of the Third Inter-national Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-9I), Oxford: ACM Press, pp. 244–253.
Doob, A.N. and Park, N.W. 1987. Computerized sentencing information forjudges, Criminal Law Quarterly 30, 54–72.
Dreyfuss, H.L. 1992. What Computers Still Can’t Do. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Dyer, M.G. 1983. In-depth understanding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Forbus, K.D. 1988. Quantitative physics: Past, present and future. In H. Shrobe (ed.), Exploring artificial intelligence. San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann.
Fox, J.A. 1981. Models in quantitative criminology. New York: Academic Press.
Freed, S.J. 1992. Federal sentencing in the wake of guidelines: unacceptable limits of the discretion of sentences. Yale Law Journal 101(8): 1681–1754.
Gardner, A. 1987. An artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT/Bradford Books.
Garland, D. 1991. Sociological perspectives in punishment. In M. Tonry (ed.), Crime and justice — a review of research, Vol. 14. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 115–165.
Gentner, D. 1989. Finding the needle: Accessing and reasoning from prior cases. In C. Hammond (ed.), Proceedings: Workshop on case-based reasoning (DARPA). San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 137–143.
Ginsberg, A. 1993. A unified approach to automatic indexing and information retrieval, IEEE Expert 8(5), 46–56.
Greenleaf, G. 1991. Information technology and the law, Australian Law Journal 65: 45–48.
Hafner, CD. 1978. An information retrieval system based on a conceptual model of legal knowledge. Ph.D. Thesis. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan.
Hafner, CD. 1987. Conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases. In First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-87). Boston: ACM Press, pp. 35–42.
Hart, H.A.L. 1963. Law liberty and morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hassett, P. 1993. Can expert system technology contribute to improved bail conditions, Int. J. of Law and Information Technology 1, 144–188.
Hassett, P. 1994. Private communication.
Hogarth, J. 1988. Computer and the law: Sentencing database system, user’s guide. Vancouver: LIST Corporation.
Home Office White Paper 1996. Protecting the public: The government’s strategy on crime in England and Wales. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Hudson, B. 1987. Justice through punishment — A critique of the ‘justice’ model of correction. London: Macmillan.
Hutton, N., Patterson, A., Tata, C, and Wilson, J. 1995. Decision support for sentencing in a common law jurisdiction, Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-95). Washington D.C.: ACM Press, pp. 89–95.
Johnson, L. and Keravnou, E.T. 1985. Expert systems technology. London: Abacus Press.
Kass, A.M., Leake, D.B., and Owens, C.C. 1986a. Swale: A program that explains. In R.C. Schank (ed.), Explanation patterns: Understanding mechanically and creatively. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 232–254.
Kass, A.M. 1986b. Modifying explanations to understand stories, Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Amherst, MA.
Kass, A.M. 1989. Adaption-based explanation: Extending script/frame theory to handle novel input, Proceedings ofIJCAI-89. San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 141–147.
Kass A.M. 1990. Developing creative hypotheses. Technical Report #6. Northwestern University, Illinois: Institute for the Learning Sciences.
Kolodner, J.L. 1981. Organization and retrieval in a conceptual memory for events, Proceedings of IJCAI-81. San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 227–233.
Kolodner, J. 1983. Maintaining organization in a conceptual memory for events, Cognitive Science 7: 281–328.
Kolodner, J.L., Simpson, R.L., and Sycara-Cyranski, K. 1985. A computer model of case-based reasoning in problem solving. Proceedings of IJCAI-85. San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 284–290.
Kolodner, J.L. 1988. Retrieving events from a case memory: A parallel implementation, Proceedings of a Workshop on CBR. San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 233–249.
Kolodner, J. 1993. Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann.
Leake, D. 1992. Evaluating explanations: A content theory, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lehnert, W., Dyer, MG., Johnson, P, Yang, C, and Harley, S. 1983. BORIS — An experiment in in-depth understanding of narratives, Artificial Intelligence 20, 15–62.
Lovegrove, A. 1987. An evaluation of judicial models for sentencing guidelines In D.C. Pennington and S. Lloyd-Bostock (eds.), The psychology of sentencing: Approaches to consistency and disparity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 133–142.
Lovegrove, A. 1989. Judicial decision making sentencing policy and numerical guidance. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Martinson, R. 1974. What work? — Questions and answers about prison reform’, The Public Interest 35, 22–54.
Mital, V., Stylianou, A., and Johnson, L. 1991. Conceptual information retrieval in litigation support systems. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-9I). Oxford: ACM Press, pp. 235–243.
Murbach, R. and Nonn, E. 1993. Similarity in harder cases. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAJL-93). Amsterdam: ACM Press, pp. 236–244.
Posner, R. 1985. An economic theory of criminal law, Columbia Law Review 85, 1193–1231.
Redmond, M. 1990. Distributed cases for case-based reasoning; facilitating use of multiple cases, Proceedings of AAAI-90. Boston: American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 304–309.
Reynolds, D. and Beck, T. 1993. Tennessee offender management information system, AI Magazine 14(3): 61–68.
Riesbeck, C.K. and Schank, R.C. 1989. Inside case-based reasoning. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rissland, E.L. and Ashley, K.D. 1987. A case-based system for trade secrets law, First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Boston: ACM Press, pp. 60–66.
Rissland, E.L. and Friedman, M.T. 1995. Detecting change in legal concepts. In: Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-95). College Park, MD: ACM Press, pp. 127–136.
Salton, G. 1989. Automatic Text Processing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Schank, R.C. and Abelson, R.P. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schank, R.C. 1980. Language and memory, Cognitive Science 4(3): 243–284.
Schank, R.C. 1982. Dynamic memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schank, R.C. 1986. Explanation patterns. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schank, R.C. and Leake, D.B. 1989. Creativity and learning in a case-based explainer, Artificial Intelligence 40: 353–385.
Schank, R.C. 1990. Tell me a story — a new look at real and artificial memory. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, Macmillan Publishing Company.
Schank, R.C, Kass, A., and Riesbeck, C.K. (eds.) 1994. Inside case-based explanation, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schild, U.J. 1992. Expert Systems and Case Law. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.
Schubert, L.K. and Hwang, C.E. 1989. An episodic knowledge representation for narrative texts, First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Toronto, Canada, pp. 444–458.
Schweighofer, E., Winiwarter, W., and Merkl, D. 1995. Information filtering: The computation of similarities in large corpora of legal texts. In: Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-95). College Park, MD: ACM Press, pp. 119–126.
Sergot, M.J. 1991. The representation of law in computer programs. In T. Bench-Capon (ed.), Knowledge-based systems and legal applications. London: Academic Press, pp. 3–67.
Shapira, M. 1990. Computerized decision technology in social service, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 10, 138–164.
Simon E. and Gaes, G. 1989. ASSYST — computer support for guideline sentencing, Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-89). Vancouver: ACM Press, pp. 195–200.
Skalak, D.B. and Rissland, E.L. 1992. Arguments and Cases, Artificial Intelligence and Law 1, 3–4.
Smith, J.C., Gelbart, D., MacCrimmon, K., Atherton, B., McClean, J., Shinehoft, M., and Quintana, L. 1995. Artificial intelligence and legal discourse: The flexlaw legal text management system, Artificial Intelligence and Law 3(1–2): 55–95.
Sowa, J.F. 1984. Conceptual structures: Information processing in mind and machine. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Susskind, R. 1987. Expert systems in law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, D.A. 1979. Principles of sentencing. London: Heinemann, 2nd ed.
Thomas, D.A. 1982. Current sentencing practice. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
Tonry, M. 1993. Sentencing Commissions and their Guidelines. In M. Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice -A Review of Research. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 17: 137–195.
Tonry, M. 1993a. The failure of the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s guidelines, Crime and Delinquency 131.]
Toulmin, S.E. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turtle, H. 1995. Text retrieval in the legal world, Artificial Intelligence and Law 3(1–2), 5–54.
Tversky, A. 1977. Features of similarity, Psychological Review 84(4), 327–352.
van Noortwijk, C, Piepers, P.A.W., van der Wees, J.G.L., and De Mulder, R.V. 1991. The JURICAS system: New applications and future developments. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-9I). Oxford: ACM Press, pp. 201–206.
von Hirsch, A. 1992. The Swedish Sentencing Law. In A. von Hirsch and A. Ashworth (eds.), Principled Sentencing, Boston: Northeastern University Press, pp. 292–307.
von Hirsch, A. and Ashworth, A. 1992. Principled Sentencing. Boston: Northeastern University Press
von Hirsch, A. 1993. Censure and Sanctions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weatherburn, D., Crettenden, I., Bray, R., and Poletti, P. 1988. New South Wales sentencing information system. New South Wales: Judicial Commission of New South Wales.
Wellbank, M. 1983. A review of knowledge acquisition techniques for expert systems. Ipswich: British Telecom.
Wilkins, L.T., Kress, J.M., Gottfredson, D.M., Calpin, J.C., and Gelman, A.M. 1978. Sentencing guidelines: Structuring judicial discretion. Washington D.C.: United States Department of Justice.
Wilson, J. 1996. Personal communication.
Zeleznikow, J. and Hunter, D. 1994. Building Intelligent Legal Information Systems. Deventer, the Netherlands: Computer/Law Series, Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schild, U.J. (1998). Criminal Sentencing and Intelligent Decision Support. In: Sartor, G., Branting, K. (eds) Judicial Applications of Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9010-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9010-5_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5136-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9010-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive