Analogy and Interpretation in Legal Argumentation

Canale, Damiano; Tuzet, Giovanni

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06334-8_13

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some jurisdictions ban the use of analogical argument in criminal trials. See Giovannetti (1984), Langenbucher (1998), Naucke (1986), andCanale andTuzet (2014) regarding issues with analogy in the criminal law in different jurisdictions. Different treatments of analogy in different jurisdictions helps to make the point about how sensitive analogical argument construction and evaluation is to the context of its use.…”

Section: A Case Study Of Contextual and Emotional Modulation Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Case Study of Contextual and Emotional Modulation of Source-case Selection in Analogical Arguments

Guarini

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In making analogical arguments about actions, is more similarity between the source and target cases always better? No: all things considered, more similarity is not always better, even if the similarities are all relevant. The reason is that the context of the argument, including emotional considerations, modulates the selection of the source case to service the goals of the argument. If the goals of the argument include persuasion and even modifying someone’s emotional state, increasing the overall similarity between the source and target may be counterproductive.

show abstract

Section: A Case Study Of Contextual and Emotional Modulation Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Case Study of Contextual and Emotional Modulation of Source-case Selection in Analogical Arguments

Guarini

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Counterfactual thinking is central to the general theory of law, and both civil and criminal law entail its use (inter alia, Taormina, 2016), as recognized also by legislators (Canale & Tuzet, 2014). This is particularly the case when judges and juries are called to evaluate whether a defendant's decisions and behaviours (or omissions) could have prevented damages or harm to someone.…”

Section: Normative and Individual Factors Affecting Counterfactual mentioning

confidence: 99%

How expert witnesses' counterfactuals influence causal and responsibility attributions of mock jurors and expert judges

Catellani

Bertolotti

Vagni

et al. 2020

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past research has shown that counterfactual ("If…then…") thoughts influence causal and responsibility attribution in the judicial context. However, little is known on whether and how the use of counterfactuals in communication affects lay jurors' and judges' evaluations. In two studies, we asked mock lay jurors (Study 1) and actual judges (Study 2) to read a medical malpractice case followed by an expert witness report, which included counterfactuals focused on either the physician, the patient, or external factors. Results showed that counterfactual focus had a strong effect on both lay jurors' and judges' causal and responsibility attributions. Counterfactual focus also moderated the effect of outcome foreseeability on responsibility attribution. Discussion focuses on how counterfactual communication can direct causal and responsibility attribution and reduce the importance of other factors known to influence judicial decision-making. The potential implications of these findings in training programs and debiasing interventions are also discussed.

show abstract

“…47 Canale i Tuzet polaze od inferencijalističkog stajališta i smatraju da je analogijsko zaključivanje složeno i da obuhvaća tri inferencijalna koraka: abdukciju relevantnog svojstva P, indukciju vrste koje ima ovo svojstvo i dedukcija T (target) koje ima svojstvo Q. 48 Zaključak je da T ima svojstvo Q budući da dijeli sa S (source) relevantno svojstvo P. 49 Ima još varijanti analogijskog zaključivanja i analogije, ali smatramo da nekoliko navedenih stajališta dovoljno ilustrira složenost ovoga zaključivanja. 50…”

Section: Vrste Zaključivanja Na Temelju Analogijeunclassified

Analogija U Pravu: Značenje I Upotreba

Harašić

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zaključivanje na temelju analogije javlja se u svakodnevnom životu i raznim područjima ljudskog djelovanja, pa tako i u pravu. Zaključivanje na temelju analogije u pravu, na prvi pogled, može se svesti na istu formu kao i zaključivanje na temelju analogije uopće-dvije premise i zaključak. No, ono se ipak razlikuje od općeg analogijskog zaključivanja, jer jedna premisa u pravnom zaključivanju mora biti normativna (a ne samo faktična). Analogijsko zaključivanje (uopće i u pravu) izučava se od strane velikog broja autora i s raznih pristupa. Suglasnost postoji samo u pogledu elementarnog oblika analogijskog zaključivanja za koji možemo reći da se zasniva na sličnosti dvaju predmeta (dviju pojava) u nekim osobinama, pa se onda na temelju te sličnosti zaključuje da su ti predmeti (pojave), slični i u nekim drugim osobinama. Što se tiče analogije u pravu, ističemo posebno njezina četiri oblika: zakonska analogija (analogia legis), pravna analogija (analogia iuris), analogia inter legem te analogija koja se koristi u precedentnom pravu. Njima se, osim što se pravne norme tumače, i popunjavaju pravne praznine (s time da popunjavanja pravnih praznina nema u kaznenom pravu). Posebno interesantno i sporno jest kada se to radi na temelju pravnih načela. Ključne riječi: zaključivanje na temelju analogije, sličnost, precedenti, popunjavanje pravnih praznina, pravna načela * Dr. sc. Žaklina Harašić, izvanredna profesorica na Katedri za teoriju prava i države Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Splitu,

show abstract

Analogy and Interpretation in Legal Argumentation

Cited by 4 publications

References 24 publications

Case Study of Contextual and Emotional Modulation of Source-case Selection in Analogical Arguments

Case Study of Contextual and Emotional Modulation of Source-case Selection in Analogical Arguments

How expert witnesses' counterfactuals influence causal and responsibility attributions of mock jurors and expert judges

Analogija U Pravu: Značenje I Upotreba

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About