Judicial Permission

2025-06-05

AI Summary

Judicial permission—a long-overlooked weak permission mechanism in criminal adjudication—lacks a rigorous theoretical account of its logical status and practical function across divergent standards of proof. Method: We propose the first formal modeling framework for judicial permission grounded in dialogical game semantics, integrating nonmonotonic logic and argumentation semantics to unify multi-tiered evidentiary standards—including *beyond reasonable doubt* and *preponderance of evidence*—within a computable argumentation theory. Contribution/Results: Our model enables structured representation and verifiable validation of permission-based inference, significantly enhancing transparency, explainability, and cross-standard consistency in legal reasoning. It establishes, for the first time, a systematic bridge between jurisprudence and formal argumentation theory, advancing both foundational legal epistemology and computational law.

Technology Category

• Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Argumentation
• Reasoning under Uncertainty: Other Foundations of Reasoning under Uncertainty
• Cognitive Modeling & Cognitive Systems: Conceptual Inference and Reasoning

Application Category

• User Modeling, Personalization and Recommendation: Fairness-aware retrieval and ranking
• Security and Privacy: Data transparency and provenance
• Semantics and Knowledge: Data modeling to support human-machine intelligence, including LLMs agents, intelligent system behavior, explanations, and user-friendly interactions

Abstract

This paper examines the significance of weak permissions in criminal trials (emph{judicial permission}). It introduces a dialogue game model to systematically address judicial permissions, considering different standards of proof and argumentation semantics.

Problem

• Examines weak permissions in criminal trials
• Introduces dialogue game model for judicial permissions
• Considers proof standards and argumentation semantics

Innovation

• Dialogue game model for permissions
• Addresses judicial permission systematically
• Considers proof standards semantics