Arguing a fortiori

Courts and lawyers often argue a fortiori . Sometimes they actually use the Latin phrase to indicate that their conclusions do not just follow, but ‘follow a fortiori ’ from certain premises. These are taken to be inferences of a distinct and important kind. But how exactly are they distinct, and why are they important? Despite their popularity, a fortiori arguments are not well understood and have not drawn much attention from legal theorists. This paper pursues two goals. The first is to bring out the form of a fortiori arguments, articulating those assumptions that, though typically left unstated, are necessary elements of arguments of this kind. The second goal is to say something about the point of such arguments, and to characterise the sort of context in which an arguer will have reason to deploy an a fortiori rather than an inference of a different type.     

论法律原则在司法审判中的适用--兼从法律推理的逻辑形式角度

在司法审判过程中 ,明文规定在法律文本中的法律原则在个案审判中具有可诉性。第一 ,法律文本中的法律原则规定对整个法律体系具有的统帅作用也应该体现在个案审判时对具体规则适用的检验上。第二 ,法律原则能更好体现法律的精神从而弥补具体条款的不足。第三 ,明文规定在法律文本中的法律原则不是法律文本中多余的内容 ,仅规定在条文上而不适用在案件中无异于使法律原则的规定成为虚设。第四 ,在个案中 ,法律原则具体化为特定的法律规范后 ,具有明确的内容 ,操作性问题并不成为其适用的阻碍     

论笔迹鉴定差异点的评断

书写习惯的自身同一是包含了差异的同一,而不同人书写习惯的差异则是包含了共性的非本质差异,因而在通过未知与已知笔迹比较检验来实现书写习惯的同一认定时必须科学评断差异的性质,否则同一认定鉴定意见缺乏科学可靠性。在对笔迹鉴定意见的质证中,对差异点的认识和性质的判断成为争议的焦点,而且成为评价鉴定活动是否严谨和科学,以及鉴定意见是否可以采信的主要依据之一。而今面对证据科学对笔迹鉴定意见的挑战,除严格笔迹鉴定的条件外,必须从理论上完善对笔迹鉴定差异点的评断方法,明确评断的规则,从而保证鉴定意见的科学可靠性。     

Unpacking public justification

ABSTRACT

This brief response to Greenfeld’s caveat submits that public justification is not omnipresent, but can extend, and has extended, beyond the modern, liberal West. Subscribing to a thin, rather than thick, conceptualization of public justification, we chart the contested contours of public justification, and urge scholars of this emergent field to clarify their own take before advancing pertinent theories and case studies. We briefly expound the nature and historical roots of both ‘justification’ and ‘the public’, suggesting that their amalgam into public justification transcends the modern, liberal West.     

The Motivated Processing of Political Arguments

We report the results of an experiment designed to replicate and extend recent findings on motivated political reasoning. In particular, we are interested in disconfirmation biases—the tendency to counter-argue or discount information with which one disagrees—in the processing of political arguments on policy issues. Our experiment examines 8 issues, including some of local relevance and some of national relevance, and manipulates the presentation format of the policy arguments. We find strong support for our basic disconfirmation hypothesis: people seem unable to ignore their prior beliefs when processing arguments or evidence. We also find that this bias is moderated by political sophistication and strength of prior attitude. We do not find, however, that argument type matters, suggesting that motivated biases are quite robust to changes in argument format. Finally, we find strong support for the polarization of attitudes as a consequence of biased processing.

Informational Cues,Partisan-Motivated Reasoning,and the Manipulation of Conspiracy Beliefs

In this article, we examine the relationship between partisan-motivated reasoning and uncertainty-inducing official information cues with respect to conspiracy beliefs. We find that while partisanship matters when it comes to conspiracy beliefs, the uncertainty-inducing and countervailing nature of official cues can further inflame conspiracy beliefs when it is not in the political interest of individuals to subscribe to a given conspiracy theory. Contrary to expectations, we find that cueing Democratic self-identifiers with different types of official responses to conspiracy theories that implicate Republicans has no effect. However, such informational cues do significantly increase conspiracy beliefs among Republicans, even when a Republican is implicated in the conspiracy theory. Although partisan-motivated reasoning has a baseline effect on conspiracy beliefs, the extent to which these beliefs can further be manipulated appears asymmetric across party lines. Simply put, Republicans appear to be more susceptible to conspiratorial cues than Democrats.     

类比推理及其在刑侦中的运用

类比推理是一种从特殊到特殊的推理,其结论虽是或然的,但类比对象的广泛性及本身强烈的探索功能使得它在刑侦破案中经常采用,特别在侦查实验中更具重大的使用价值。     

刑事个案犯罪信息研判中的直言变形推理

刑事个案犯罪信息研判是指侦查人员在刑事个案侦查中,对某一刑事个案的现有犯罪信息进行分析研究,得出关于犯罪信息的新判断的思维过程,它以推理为主要信息处理方式。直言变形推理是刑事个案犯罪信息研判中一种较简单的推理,它包括直言换质推理、直言换位推理以及二者的综合运用。三者具有各自的优点和缺点,因此,在刑事个案犯罪信息研判中运用直言变形推理时需要遵守一些合理性原则。     

An exercise in scientific problem-solving: Illustrating the utility of the principles of the Sydney Declaration

In forensic science, scientific problem-solving is characterized by the recognition of traces as part of iterative reasoning processes to assign meaning to those traces in order to interpret and reconstruct events. Through a set of fundamental principles, the Sydney Declaration presents a foundation of forensic science through the lens of a scientist. The distinction between a scientist and a technician may require clarification—where a prototypical technician follows a prescribed set of ‘standard operating procedures’ and may be limited in the interpretation of the resultant data, the scientist utilizes knowledge, skills, experience and imagination to identify the issue at hand and develop lines of inquiry for testing and interpretation. This case report draws on the Sydney Declaration in order to highlight the importance of learning about events from careful consideration of both obvious and less obvious traces. A case involving the assault of a police officer is examined to illustrate the use of the Principles: the problem originally defined by investigators at the scene and later by prosecutors resulted in incorrect analysis and interpretation of traces, hampering efforts at an accurate reconstruction of events. This exercise serves to demonstrate that in order to engage in scientific problem-solving, it is necessary to apply observation and reasoning in forensic investigations in order to yield an outcome that can be clearly articulated. The overarching goal is to support the drive to improve forensic science practice, education, and research through a case illustrating the value of the principles of the Sydney Declaration.     

人工智能时代法律推理的基本模式——基于可废止逻辑的刻画

从逻辑学的角度看,法律推理具有非单调性。人工智能时代更清晰地凸显出了与这一特性相应的可废止推理模式的必要性。可废止推理虽未必一定用可废止逻辑来刻画,但这一做法在人工智能的环境下更加合乎目的。法律推理的可废止性源于法律规则的可废止性,法律规则的逻辑形式化要求将其构成要件表征为"有待证明的要素"(P要素)与"未被驳倒的要素"(NR要素)两部分,后者的引入恰当地处理了规则与例外的关系。在此基础上,可以通过引入三类"废止者",即反驳型废止者、截断型废止者和削弱型废止者,来建构可废止法律推理的基本模型。但这同时也显现出了可废止法律推理的智能化限度,核心在于它无法进行司法裁判中必不可少的价值判断。