ARTICLE

THE STORY MODEL OF JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING AND REASONING WITH EVIDENCE

  1. HOME
  2. ARTICLE

02 Pages : 7-13

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/glsr.2021(VI-II).02      10.31703/glsr.2021(VI-II).02      Published : Jun 2021

The Story Model of Judicial Decision-Making and Reasoning With Evidence

Abstract

    The argumentative approach, the probability approach, and the story model are the three normative frameworks to reasoning with judicial evidence. The story model describes that judges reach the final conclusion by going through three different stages. The model also offered certainty principles, including evidential coverage, coherence, consistency, plausibility, and structural completeness to evaluate the stories. Different researchers have criticized the story model by pointing out that the model does not elaborate the meaning of evidential coverage and plausibility. Additionally, the story model has also been charged on the ground that it does not guide how to evaluate evidential coverage or plausibility of a story and how to select the best story when judges make more than one story. The present study demonstrates that these shortcomings may be overcome by using anchored narrative theory, causal abductive reasoning, story schemes, critical questions, and principles of inference to the best explanation.

    Decision-Making, Story, Argumentative, Probability Approach, Judicial Evidence

    (1) Nasir Majeed
    PhD Scholar, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
    (2) Ataullah Khan Mahmood
    Assistant Professor, International Islamic University Islamabad, Pakistan.
Fulltext PDF

References

  • Amaya, A. (2007). Inference to the best legal explanation. Available at SSRN 2044136.
  • Anderson, T., Schum, D., & Twining, W. (2005). Analysis of evidence. Cambridge University Press.
  • Bennett, W., & Feldman, M. (1981). Reconstructing reality in the courtroom: Justice and Judgement in the American Culture. London: Tavistock Feldman.
  • Bex, F. (2016). Analyzing stories using schemes. In H. P. Hendrik Kaptein, and Bart Verheij (Ed.), Legal evidence and proof: statistics, stories, logic. Routledge
  • Bex, F. J. (2011). Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: A formal hybrid theory (Vol. 92). Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Bex, F. J., & Verheij, B. (2010). Story schemes for argumentation about the facts of a crime. 2010 AAAI Fall Symposium Series,
  • Bex, F., Prakken, H., & Verhey, B. (2006). Anchored Narratives in Reasoning about Evidence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 152, 11-20.
  • Di Bello, M., & Verheij, B. (2018). Evidential reasoning. In Handbook of legal reasoning and argumentation (pp. 447-493). Springer.
  • Douven, I. (2002). Testing inference to the best explanation. Synthese, 130(3), 355-377.
  • Harman, G. H. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. The philosophical review, 74(1), 88-95.
  • Josephson, J. R., & Josephson, S. G. (2003). Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy, technology. Cambridge University Press.
  • Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation (2 ed.). Taylor & Francis.
  • MacCrimmon, M., & Tillers, P. (2012). The dynamics of judicial proof: computation, logic, and common sense 94. Physica.
  • Pardo, M. S., & Allen, R. J. (2008). Juridical proof and the best explanation. Law and Philosophy, 27(3), 223-268.
  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(2), 242.
  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation- based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 521.
  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making. Journal of personality and social psychology, 62(2), 189-206.
  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993a). Reasoning in explanation-based decision making. Cognition, 49(1-2), 123-163.
  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993b). The story model for juror decision-making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making. Cambridge University Press.
  • Prakken, H. (2014). On direct and indirect probabilistic reasoning in legal proof. Law, Probability and Risk, 13(3-4), 327-337.
  • Prakken, H., & Kaptein, H. (2016). Legal evidence and proof: statistics, stories, logic. Routledge.
  • Roberts, P., Aitken, C., Taroni, F., & Biedermann, A. (2013). PRACTITIONER GUIDE NO 3: The Logic of Forensic Proof: Inferential Reasoning in Criminal Evidence and Forensic Science. In: London: R. Stat. Soc. http://www. maths. ed. ac. uk/∼ cgga/Guide- 3-WEB. pdf.
  • Schweizer, M. (2014). Comparing holistic and atomistic evaluation of evidence. Law, Probability and Risk, 13(1), 65-89.
  • Thagard, P. R. (1978). The best explanation: Criteria for theory choice. The journal of philosophy, 75(2), 76-92.
  • Wagenaar, W. A. (2011). Anchored narratives: A theory of judicial reasoning, and its consequences. Psychology, law, and criminal justice, 267-285.
  • Wigmore, J. H. (1913). The Principles of Judicial Proof: As Given by Logic, Psychology, and General Experience, and Illustrated in Judicial Trials, Little, Brown, 1913.

Cite this article

APA

CHICAGO

    CHICAGO : Majeed, Nasir, and Ataullah Khan Mahmood. 2021. "The Story Model of Judicial Decision-Making and Reasoning With Evidence." Global Legal Studies Review, VI (II): 7-13 doi: 10.31703/glsr.2021(VI-II).02

HARVARD

    HARVARD : MAJEED, N. & MAHMOOD, A. K. 2021. The Story Model of Judicial Decision-Making and Reasoning With Evidence. Global Legal Studies Review, VI, 7-13.

MHRA

    MHRA : Majeed, Nasir, and Ataullah Khan Mahmood. 2021. "The Story Model of Judicial Decision-Making and Reasoning With Evidence." Global Legal Studies Review, VI: 7-13

MLA

    MLA : Majeed, Nasir, and Ataullah Khan Mahmood. "The Story Model of Judicial Decision-Making and Reasoning With Evidence." Global Legal Studies Review, VI.II (2021): 7-13 Print.

OXFORD

    OXFORD : Majeed, Nasir and Mahmood, Ataullah Khan (2021), "The Story Model of Judicial Decision-Making and Reasoning With Evidence", Global Legal Studies Review, VI (II), 7-13

TURABIAN

    TURABIAN : Majeed, Nasir, and Ataullah Khan Mahmood. "The Story Model of Judicial Decision-Making and Reasoning With Evidence." Global Legal Studies Review VI, no. II (2021): 7-13. https://doi.org/10.31703/glsr.2021(VI-II).02