What About the Precedent: An Information-Theoretic Analysis of Common Law

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2104.12133v1
• Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 11:20:09 GMT
• Title: What About the Precedent: An Information-Theoretic Analysis of Common Law
• Authors: Josef Valvoda, Tiago Pimentel, Niklas Stoehr, Ryan Cotterell, Simone Teufel
• Abstract summary: In common law, the outcome of a new case is determined mostly by precedent cases, rather than existing statutes. We are the first to approach this question by comparing two longstanding jurisprudential views. We find that the precedent's arguments share 0.38 nats of information with the case's outcome, whereas precedent's facts only share 0.18 nats of information.
• Score: 64.49276556192073
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In common law, the outcome of a new case is determined mostly by precedent cases, rather than by existing statutes. However, how exactly does the precedent influence the outcome of a new case? Answering this question is crucial for guaranteeing fair and consistent judicial decision-making. We are the first to approach this question computationally by comparing two longstanding jurisprudential views; Halsbury's, who believes that the arguments of the precedent are the main determinant of the outcome, and Goodhart's, who believes that what matters most is the precedent's facts. We base our study on the corpus of legal cases from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which allows us to access not only the case itself, but also cases cited in the judges' arguments (i.e. the precedent cases). Taking an information-theoretic view, and modelling the question as a case outcome classification task, we find that the precedent's arguments share 0.38 nats of information with the case's outcome, whereas precedent's facts only share 0.18 nats of information (i.e., 58% less); suggesting Halsbury's view may be more accurate in this specific court. We found however in a qualitative analysis that there are specific statues where Goodhart's view dominates, and present some evidence these are the ones where the legal concept at hand is less straightforward.

Related papers

• Empirical analysis of Binding Precedent efficiency in the Brazilian Supreme Court via Similar Case Retrieval [3.317447070657057]
  We empirically assess the legal impact of five binding precedents, 11, 14, 17, 26 and 37, at the highest court level. We compare the uses of different methods of Natural Language Processing for Similar Case Retrieval. We observe that the deep learning models performed significantly worse in the specific Similar Case Retrieval task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T16:17:16Z)
• DELTA: Pre-train a Discriminative Encoder for Legal Case Retrieval via Structural Word Alignment [55.91429725404988]
  We introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval. We leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability. Our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T10:40:14Z)
• Towards Explainability in Legal Outcome Prediction Models [64.00172507827499]
  We argue that precedent is a natural way of facilitating explainability for legal NLP models. By developing a taxonomy of legal precedent, we are able to compare human judges and neural models. We find that while the models learn to predict outcomes reasonably well, their use of precedent is unlike that of human judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T15:15:41Z)
• PILOT: Legal Case Outcome Prediction with Case Law [43.680862577060765]
  We identify two unique challenges in making legal case outcome predictions with case law. First, it is crucial to identify relevant precedent cases that serve as fundamental evidence for judges during decision-making. Second, it is necessary to consider the evolution of legal principles over time, as early cases may adhere to different legal contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T21:18:05Z)
• Exploiting Contrastive Learning and Numerical Evidence for Confusing Legal Judgment Prediction [46.71918729837462]
  Given the fact description text of a legal case, legal judgment prediction aims to predict the case's charge, law article and penalty term. Previous studies fail to distinguish different classification errors with a standard cross-entropy classification loss. We propose a moco-based supervised contrastive learning to learn distinguishable representations. We further enhance the representation of the fact description with extracted crime amounts which are encoded by a pre-trained numeracy model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-15T15:53:56Z)
• Do Charge Prediction Models Learn Legal Theory? [59.74220430434435]
  We argue that trustworthy charge prediction models should take legal theories into consideration. We propose three principles for trustworthy models should follow in this task, which are sensitive, selective, and presumption of innocence. Our findings indicate that, while existing charge prediction models meet the selective principle on a benchmark dataset, most of them are still not sensitive enough and do not satisfy the presumption of innocence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-31T07:32:12Z)
• Predicting Indian Supreme Court Judgments, Decisions, Or Appeals [0.403831199243454]
  We introduce our newly developed ML-enabled legal prediction model and its operational prototype, eLegPredict. eLegPredict is trained and tested over 3072 supreme court cases and has achieved 76% accuracy (F1-score) The eLegPredict is equipped with a mechanism to aid end users, where as soon as a document with new case description is dropped into a designated directory, the system quickly reads through its content and generates prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-28T18:28:43Z)
• AutoLAW: Augmented Legal Reasoning through Legal Precedent Prediction [0.0]
  This paper demonstrate how NLP can be used to address an unmet need of the legal community and increase access to justice. The paper introduces Legal Precedent Prediction (LPP), the task of predicting relevant passages from precedential court decisions given the context of a legal argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-30T13:01:33Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.