Witness Impeachment in Cross-Examination Using Ad Hominem Argumentation

Walton, Douglas

doi:10.2478/slgr-2018-0030

Abstract

This paper combines methods of argumentation theory and artificial intelligence to extend existing work on the dialectical structure of crossexamination. The existing method used conflict diagrams to search for inconsistent statements in the testimony of a witness. This paper extends the method by using the inconsistency of commitments to draw an inference by the ad hominem argumentation scheme to the conclusion that the testimony is unreliable because of the bad ethical character for veracity of the witness.

References

Aristotle (1939). Topics (trans. E. S. Forster). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bench-Capon, T. J.M., Doutre, S. and Dunne, P. E. (2008). Asking the Right Question: Forcing Commitment in Examination Dialogues. Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, ed. P. Besnard, S. Doutre and A. Hunter. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 49-60.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Budzynska, K. and Reed, C. (2012). The Structure of Ad Hominem Dialogues. Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2012. ed. B. Verheij, S. Szeider and S. Woltran. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 410-421 (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 245).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Budzynska, K. and Witek, M. (2014). Non-Inferential Aspects of Ad Hominem and Ad Baculum, Argumentation, 28 (3), 301-315.10.1007/s10503-014-9322-6
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dunne, P. E., Doutre, S. and Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2005). Discovering Inconsistency through Examination Dialogues. In: Proceedings IJCAI-05 (International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence), Edinburgh, 1560-1561.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gordon, T. F. and Walton, D. (2009). Legal Reasoning with Argumentation Schemes, 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ed. Carole D. Hafner, New York, Association for Computing Machinery, 2009, 137-146.10.1145/1568234.1568250
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation, Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, ed. P. Cole and J. L. Morgan. New York: Academic Press, 1975, 43-58.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hamblin, C. L. (1971). Mathematical Models of Dialogue. Theoria, 37(2), 130-155.10.1111/j.1755-2567.1971.tb00065.x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Harary, F. (1972). Graph Theory. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2013). Topical Roots of Formal Dialectic, Argumentation, 27(1), 71-87.10.1007/s10503-012-9278-3
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Levy, E. J. (2011). Examination of Witnesses in Criminal Cases. Toronto: Thomson Reuters.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Macagno, F. and Walton, D. (2012). Character Attacks as Complex Strategies of Legal Argumentation, International Journal of Law, Language and Discourse, 2(3), 59-117.10.1111/j.1467-9337.2012.00514.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
F. Macagno and D. Walton (2013). Implicatures as Forms of Argument, Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy, ed. A. Capone et al. Berlin: Springer, 203-224.10.1007/978-3-319-01011-3_9
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
MacCarthy, T. F. (2007). MacCarthy on Cross-Examination. Chicago: American Bar Association.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
MacCarthy, T. F., MacCarthy, S. P. and MacCarthy, T. F., Honorable (2016). MacCarthy on Impeachment. Chicago: American Bar Association, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mauet, T. A. (2005). Trials: Strategy, Skills, and the New Powers of Persuasion. New York: Aspen Publishers.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Poole, D. L. and Macworth, A. K. (2011). Artificial Intelligence: Foundations of Computational Agents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511794797
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Prakken, H. (2010). An Abstract Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments. Argument and Computation 1, 93-124.10.1080/19462160903564592
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Prakken, H. (2011). An Overview of Formal models of Argumentation and their Application in Philosophy. Studies in Logic, 4(1), (2011): 65-86. http://www.cs.uu.nl/groups/IS/archive/henry/china11.pdf.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Reed, C. (2011). Implicit Speech Acts Are Ubiquitous. Why? They Join the Dots, Zenker, F. (ed.). Argument Cultures: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18-21, 2011. Windsor, ON (CD ROM), 1-15.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Robinson, R. (1953). Plato’s Earlier Dialectic, 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Slomkowski, P. (1997). Aristotle’s Topics, Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004320994
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Verheij, B. (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 167-195.10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046008.49443.36
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Verheij, B. (2005). Virtual Arguments. On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.10.1007/978-90-6704-661-9
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D. (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D. (2018). Conflict Diagrams for Cross-examination Dialogues, Argumentation and Advocacy, 4(3), 199-218.10.1080/00028533.2018.1442977
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D., and E. C. W. Krabbe. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D. and Gordon, T. F. (2015). Formalizing Informal Logic, Informal Logic, 35(4), 2015, 508-538.10.22329/il.v35i4.4335
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D. and Gordon, T. F. (2017). Argument Invention with the Carneades Argumentation System, ScriptED: A Journal of Law, Technology and Society, 14(2), 2017, 168-207.10.2966/scrip.140217.168
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D., Reed, C. andMacagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802034
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wehr, P. (1979). Conflict Regulation. Boulder: Westview Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wellman, F. L. (1919). The Art of Cross-Examination, 2nd ed. New York & London: The Macmillan Company.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Reed, C. (2011). Implicit Speech Acts Are Ubiquitous. Why? They Join the Dots, Zenker, F. (ed.). Argument Cultures: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18-21, 2011. Windsor, ON (CD ROM), 1-15.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Robinson, R. (1953). Plato’s Earlier Dialectic, 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Slomkowski, P. (1997). Aristotle’s Topics, Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004320994
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Verheij, B. (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 167-195.10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046008.49443.36
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Verheij, B. (2005). Virtual Arguments. On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.10.1007/978-90-6704-661-9
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D. (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D. (2018). Conflict Diagrams for Cross-examination Dialogues, Argumentation and Advocacy, 4(3), 199-218.10.1080/00028533.2018.1442977
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D., and E. C. W. Krabbe. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D. and Gordon, T. F. (2015). Formalizing Informal Logic, Informal Logic, 35(4), 2015, 508-538.10.22329/il.v35i4.4335
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D. and Gordon, T. F. (2017). Argument Invention with the Carneades Argumentation System, ScriptED: A Journal of Law, Technology and Society, 14(2), 2017, 168-207.10.2966/scrip.140217.168
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walton, D., Reed, C. andMacagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802034
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wehr, P. (1979). Conflict Regulation. Boulder: Westview Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wellman, F. L. (1919). The Art of Cross-Examination, 2nd ed. New York & London: The Macmillan Company.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Witness Impeachment in Cross-Examination Using Ad Hominem Argumentation

Abstract

Paradigm

My account