Tim,
Thank you for the sample diagram, which solves many problems.
The arc from the elements of murder to "murder" would be, in
Rationale, an arc designating "by definition"?
There is an ambiguity here that one can ignore in many instances but
not in all instances.
Consider:
The 2nd tier events, the ones below "murder" -- e.g. "cause" -- can be
specific spatio-temporal events -- e.g., David Defendant caused
Valiant Victim's death.
The 2nd tier events -- e.g., again, "cause" -- can also be generic
elements of the crime of murder -- e.g., a person must cause the death
of another.
For practical purposes one can sometimes assume that the generic
elements and possible spatio-temporal thought to instantiate them are
one and the same.
But not always.
Sometimes there will be disagreement about whether a spacific spatio-
temporal event instantiates, or satisfies, a generic requirement such
as "causation" or "person" (e.g., was the brain-damaged patient a
"person" in the eyes of the law?).
Sometimes there will be disagreement about the generic requirements,
the elements of the claim, charge, or defense (e.g., in some sort of
toxic tort case: does conduct enhacing risk when combined with
occurrence of some harm [which may have been caused in some one of
several ways but the single cause cannot be satisfactorily determined
or which may have had multiple causes] amount to "causation"?)
Sometimes alternative spatio-temporal events can instantiate, or
satisfy, a generic requirement (e.g., in a negligence action: David
Defendant created an "unreasonable risk of harm" either by driving at
60 miles per hour or by driving with his eyes shut or by driving while
talking on a cell phone)
Diagramming such variations can be tricky and messy. (Consider that
one might want to bring in legal authority to substantiate and discuss
alternative legal interpretations of "causation" -- of what this
generic element requires for a certain kind of claim [or, indeed,
whether or not "causation" of any kind is required at all]. Consider
also that evidence bearing on one spatio-temporal instantiation of one
generic requirement [element] of one claim or defense will not always
be relevant to another possible spatio-temporal instantiation [event]
of the same [generic] element of the same claim, charge, or defense.)
But as tricky as such diagramming might be, I can imagine that the
tools in Rationale might make such diagramming workable -- because the
arcs can be made to mean different things and because sticky
explanatory notes can be attached to or buried in the diagram,
correct?
&&&
N.B. Can Rationale be hooked up to a database?
Peter
On Feb 18, 5:29 pm, "Tim van Gelder" <timvangel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter's note concerns what lawyers call the elements of the crime of
> murder. Murder is a compound event. One way to specify the elements is,
> as Peter does, by listing the parts of speech which occur in a succinct
> sentence describing the compound event, i.e.
> the defendant
> - deliberately
> - caused
> - the death of
> - another person
> Each of these however is shorthand for a component or aspect of the compound
> event. Thus "caused" is shorthand for the proposition
> The defendant caused the death of the victim.
> Note that this proposition takes for granted another proposition
> The victim died.
> and, if the charge of murder is to be sustained, another proposition must be
> true:
> The victim was a person.
> Since all these propositions must all be true together, in Rationale we'd
> use an "Analysis" mode map (see attached).
> The disadvantage of such a representation is that it is wordy, especially as
> compared with the shorthand approach mentioned above. However there are
> corresponding advantages. In particular it more accurately represents what
> the prosecution will, in fact, have to establish - i.e., the truth of a
> series of distinct but interrelated propositions. It also represents them
> in a more logically appropriate order, i.e, getting the order of logical
> priority roughly right; there's no point in proving that the defendant did
> it deliberately if the victim wasn't even a person. (It is interesting that
> the natural order in an English sentence is almost the reverse of the order
> of logical dependency.)
> Nevertheless, we're interested in the idea that there might be some
> alternative diagramming format in software such as Rationale which provides
> a more succinct and perhaps in some ways more practically "useable" way of
> representing these sorts of top-level legal cases.
> - Tim v.G.
> On 18/02/07, PeterT <peter.till...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I will have to figure out how best to use 'Rationale' to assess the
> > occurrence or non-occurrence of "composite events," e.g., an event X
> > consisting of events a, b + c. This is because in law the factual
> > events in question in adjudication and investigation are invariably
> > such composite events; e.g., Did David Defendant (a) deliberately (b)
> > cause (d) the death of (e) another person. I am not (necessarily)
> > suggesting that 'Rationale' should be modified in some way to make
> > argument about or analysis of such composite or compund events easier;
> > 'Rationale', I recognize, is a general-purpose tool. But I do have to
> > adapt Rationale to my "legal needs."
> > I am rather more interested in legal problems as they occur in the
> > real world than I am in simulated and sanitized problems that are
> > cooked up by academics in order to keep problems analytically
> > tractable. I am interested in procedures for analyzing "messy"
> > problems."
> > Incidentally, almost all work on charting argument about or analysis
> > of factual questions in litigation assumes that the occurrence or
> > character of but a single evnt is in question. But that assumption is
> > incorrect. See P. Tillers, "Probability and Uncertainty in Law,"
> >http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=738764
> --
> Austhink
> Unit 15, 233 Cardigan St
> Carlton VIC 3053 Australia
> +61 3 9017 4972www.austhink.com
> Rationale Thoughts: rtnl.wordpress.com
> murder elements.jpeg
> 17KViewDownload
|
