Teaching and using analogy in law

Analogy plays a central role in legal reasoning, yet how to analogize is poorly taught and poorly practiced. We all recognize when legal analogies are being made: when a law professor suggests a difficult hypothetical in class and a student tentatively guesses at the answer based on the cases she read the night before, when an attorney advises a client to settle because a previous case goes against him, or when a judge adopts one precedent over another on the basis that it better fits the present case. However, when it comes to explaining why certain analogies are compelling, persuasive, or better than the alternative, lawyers usually draw a blank. The purpose of this article is to provide a simple model that can be used to teach and to learn how analogy actually works, and what makes one analogy superior to a competing analogy. The model is drawn from a number of theories of analogy making in cognitive science. Cognitive science is the “long-term enterprise to understand the mind scientifically.” The field studies the mechanisms that are involved in cognitive processes like thinking, memory, learning, and recall; and one of its main foci has been on how people construct analogies. The lessons from cognitive science theories of analogy can be applied to legal analogies to give students and lawyers a better understanding of this fundamental process in legal reasoning.

Expanding horizons : scientific frontiers, legal regulation, and globalization

In the six decades since the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA by Watson and Crick in 1953, developments in genetic science have transformed our understanding of human health and disease. These developments, along with those in other areas such as computer science, biotechnology, and nanotechnology, have opened exciting new possibilities for the future. In addition, the increasing trend for technologies to converge and build upon each other potentially increases the pace of change, constantly expanding the boundaries of the scientific frontier. At the same time, however, scientific advances are often accompanied by public unease over the potential for unforeseen, negative outcomes. For governments, these issues present significant challenges for effective regulation. This Article analyzes the challenges associated with crafting laws for rapidly changing science and technology. It considers whether we need to regulate, how best to regulate for converging technologies, and how best to ensure the continued relevance of laws in the face of change.

Legal rights during pandemics : federalism, rights and public health laws - a view from Australia

Pandemic influenza will cause significant social and economic disruption. Legal frameworks can play an important role in clarifying the rights and duties of individuals, communities and governments for times of crisis. In addressing legal frameworks, there is a need for jurisdictional clarity between different levels of government in responding to public health emergencies. Public health laws are also informed by our understandings of rights and responsibilities for individuals and communities, and the balancing of public health and public freedoms. Consideration of these issues is an essential part of planning for pandemic influenza.

A new national women's health policy : legal, ethical and policy initiatives to support women's health

In 1989 the first National Women's Health Policy was launched in Australia. Now, 20 years later, the Federal Government has announced plans for the development of a new National Women's Health Policy to address the health needs of Australian women. The Policy will be based on five principles: gender equity; health equity between women; a focus on prevention; an evidence base for interventions; and a life course approach. This editorial examines the role for law in the development of a new National Women's Health Policy. It considers the relevance of regulatory frameworks for health research in supporting an evidence base for health interventions and analyses the requirement in the National Health and Medical Research Council's National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research for "fair inclusion" of research participants. The editorial argues for a holistic approach to women's health that includes regulatory frameworks for research, identification of funding priorities for research, and the need for a dedicated government department or agency to promote women's health.

Professional Responsibility and Legal Ethics in Queensland [2nd Ed.]

Professional Responsibility and Legal Ethics in Queensland offers a proven, practical approach to identifying and resolving ethical issues that may arise in daily legal practice in Queensland. It is an excellent resource for practitioners and students alike who need to navigate relevant legislation and understand legal ethics through accessible, problem-based scenarios. The introduction of the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules and Barristers’ Rule 2011, and changes to enforcement mechanisms where breaches have occurred, make the Second Edition essential reading for solicitors, barristers and law students in Queensland. Diverse practice structures, the enactment of the new rules, and other legislative developments will affect lawyers’ work and the way they must interact with their clients, with each other and with the court. Providing detailed explanation and analysis of these changes, the authors explain the ethical and regulatory environment for Queensland lawyers as the national legal services market continues to evolve.

Don't think but look : a Gestalt interactionist approach to legal thinking

We propose here a new approach to legal thinking that is based on principles of Gestalt perception. Using a Gestalt view of perception, which sees perception as the process of building a conceptual representation of the given stimulus, we articulate legal thinking as the process of building a representation for the given facts of a case. We propose a model in which top-down and bottom-up processes interact together to build arguments (or representations) in legal thinking. We discuss some implications of our approach, especially with respect to modeling precedential reasoning and creativity in legal thinking.

Out of their minds: legal theory in neural networks

This paper examines the use of connectionism (neural networks) in modelling legal reasoning. I discuss how the implementations of neural networks have failed to account for legal theoretical perspectives on adjudication. I criticise the use of neural networks in law, not because connectionism is inherently unsuitable in law, but rather because it has been done so poorly to date. The paper reviews a number of legal theories which provide a grounding for the use of neural networks in law. It then examines some implementations undertaken in law and criticises their legal theoretical naïvete. It then presents a lessons from the implementations which researchers must bear in mind if they wish to build neural networks which are justified by legal theories.

The IKBALS project: multi-modal reasoning in legal knowledge based systems

In attempting to build intelligent litigation support tools, we have moved beyond first generation, production rule legal expert systems. Our work integrates rule based and case based reasoning with intelligent information retrieval. When using the case based reasoning methodology, or in our case the specialisation of case based retrieval, we need to be aware of how to retrieve relevant experience. Our research, in the legal domain, specifies an approach to the retrieval problem which relies heavily on an extended object oriented/rule based system architecture that is supplemented with causal background information. We use a distributed agent architecture to help support the reasoning process of lawyers. Our approach to integrating rule based reasoning, case based reasoning and case based retrieval is contrasted to the CABARET and PROLEXS architectures which rely on a centralised blackboard architecture. We discuss in detail how our various cooperating agents interact, and provide examples of the system at work. The IKBALS system uses a specialised induction algorithm to induce rules from cases. These rules are then used as indices during the case based retrieval process. Because we aim to build legal support tools which can be modified to suit various domains rather than single purpose legal expert systems, we focus on principles behind developing legal knowledge based systems. The original domain chosen was theAccident Compensation Act 1989 (Victoria, Australia), which relates to the provision of benefits for employees injured at work. For various reasons, which are indicated in the paper, we changed our domain to that ofCredit Act 1984 (Victoria, Australia). This Act regulates the provision of loans by financial institutions. The rule based part of our system which provides advice on the Credit Act has been commercially developed in conjunction with a legal firm. We indicate how this work has lead to the development of a methodology for constructing rule based legal knowledge based systems. We explain the process of integrating this existing commercial rule based system with the case base reasoning and retrieval architecture.

Reasoning paradigms in legal decision support systems

In this paper we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a range of artificial intelligence approaches used in legal domains. Symbolic reasoning systems which rely on deductive, inductive and analogical reasoning are described and reviewed. The role of statistical reasoning in law is examined, and the use of neural networks analysed. There is discussion of architectures for, and examples of, systems which combine a number of these reasoning strategies. We conclude that to build intelligent legal decision support systems requires a range of reasoning strategies.

Deductive, inductive and analogical reasoning in legal decision support systems

In this paper we provide an overview of a number of fundamental reasoning formalisms in artificial intelligence which can and have been used in modelling legal reasoning. We describe deduction, induction and analogical reasoning formalisms, and show how they can be used separately to model legal reasoning. We argue that these formalisms can be used together to model legal reasoning more accurately, and describe a number of attempts to integrate the approaches.

Rewriting the future? Biomedical advances and legal dilemmas

Developments in medical science have sparked public debate about the legal and ethical implications of new technologies. Within these debates a number of distinct discourses are evident, including discourses about the positive and negative implications of technological advances, the influence of globalisation on regulatory choice, and the challenges of articulating common values in a pluralistic society. This article argues that an understanding of these discourses is an essential part of understanding the nature of contemporary regulatory dilemmas.