Hypotheses and their dynamics in legal argumentation

Abstract

We investigate some legal interpretation techniques from the viewpoint of the Argentinian jurisprudence. This allows the proposal of a logical framework –from a computer science perspective–for modeling such specific reasoning techniques towards an appropriate construction of legal arguments. Afterwards, we study the usage of assumptions towards construction of hypotheses. This is proposed in the dynamic context of legal procedures, where the referred argumentation framework evolves as part of the investiga- tion instance prior to the trial. We propose belief revision operators to handle such dynamics, preserving a coherent behavior with regards to the legal interpretation used. Abduction is finally proposed to con- struct systematic hypothesization, with the objective to bring semi-automatic recommendations to push forward the investigation of a legal case.