hisorherreasoningorjudgmentTheprovocationmustbesucienttohavecausedapersonofaveragedispositiontoactrashlyandwithoutduedeliberationthatisfrompassionratherthanfromjudgmentIIIHeatofpassiondoesnotr ID: 473074
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "underwhichtheclaimedemotionobtains.Where..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
underwhichtheclaimedemotionobtains.Wheresuchinconsistenciesarise,onemaycounter-claimthattheemotiondidnotnormativelyobtain,underminingtheclaimantsargument.Alternatively,theremaybeproceduralmoves,asinwhereanemotionalclaimoremotionalargumentisruledinadmissibleincourt.Inthesevariousways,wereasonexplicitlyaboutargumentswithemotionalcon-tentratherthansimplyrulingthemout.Asarguedin[9],bymakingemotionalargumentsexplicitandformal,wecanpresentbetter,clearer,andfullerrepre-sentationsoflegalcaseargumentsanddecisionmaking.Thequestionis,then,justhowtorepresentemotionssoastobearguable?2.2JuryInstructionsOneapproachtomodelinglegalreasoningwouldbetomodelindividualcasesoracorpusoflegalcases,e.g.asinlegalcase-basedreasoning[1].Wetakeadi erentbutrelatedapproachbymodelingaspectsofthereasoningfoundinjuryinstructions,e.g.theJudicialCouncilofCaliforniaCriminalJuryInstructions(2011)[11],whicharedevelopedandmaintainedbycriminaljusticesystemsasinstructionsandstandardsforjudges,juries,andlitigantsonhowlegalissuesaretobedecided,givingindicativecases.Assuch,inotherwords,juryinstructionsareintendedtobedistilledguidanceaboutnormativelegalreasoningthattakestheproceedings,evidence,andargumentsofthecaseovertimeasinputandproducesadecision.Weconsider,inparticular,CaliforniaCriminalJuryInstructionCALCRIMNo.511ExcusableHomicide:AccidentintheHeatofPassion,whichestablishestheconditionsunderwhichahomicideisexcusableonthegroundsofextremeemotionandcitescasesforvariouspointsoftheconditions,e.g.SubstantialEmotionalDistressDenedinPeoplev.Ewing(1999)76Cal.App.4th199,210[90Cal.Rptr.2d177].Togroundouranalysis,weprovidetherelevantextractsfromthetwopagesofthejuryinstructionsforCALCRIMNo.511.WeindexclausesI-VIIforreference,andwehaveomittedclausesirrelevanttoourdiscussionrelatingtoundueadvantage,dangerousweapons,crueltyorunusualnessofkilling,intenttokill,greatbodilyinjury,orcriminalnegligence:[I]CLAIM:Thedefendantisnotguiltyof(murder/[or]manslaugh-ter)if(he/she)killedsomeonebyaccidentwhileactingintheheatofpassion.Suchakillingisexcused,andthereforenotunlawful,if,atthetimeofthekilling:{1.Thedefendantactedintheheatofpassion;{2.Thedefendantwas(suddenlyprovokedbyinsertnameofdecedent&#x]TJ/;༧ ; .96;& T; 7.;݉ ;� Td;&#x [00;/[or]suddenlydrawnintocombatbyinsertnameofdecedent&#x]TJ/;༧ ; .96;& T; 7.;݉ ;� Td;&#x [00;);{3-7indicateother,non-emotionalconditions.[II]Apersonactsintheheatofpassionwhenheorsheisprovokedintodoingarashactunderthein uenceofintenseemotionthatobscures hisorherreasoningorjudgment.Theprovocationmustbesucienttohavecausedapersonofaveragedispositiontoactrashlyandwith-outduedeliberation,thatis,frompassionratherthanfromjudgment.[III]Heatofpassiondoesnotrequireanger,rage,oranyspecicemotion.Itcanbeanyviolentorintenseemotionthatcausesaper-sontoactwithoutduedeliberationandre ection.[IV]Inorderforthekillingtobeexcusedonthisbasis,thedefen-dantmusthaveactedunderthedirectandimmediatein uenceofprovocationasIhavedenedit.Whilenospecictypeofprovocationisrequired,slightorremoteprovocationisnotsucient.Sucientprovocationmayoccuroverashortorlongperiodoftime.[V]Itisnotenoughthatthedefendantsimplywasprovoked.Thedefendantisnotallowedtosetup(his/her)ownstandardofconduct.Youmustdecidewhetherthedefendantwasprovokedandwhethertheprovocationwassucient.Indecidingwhethertheprovocationwassucient,considerwhetherapersonofaveragedispositionwouldhavebeenprovokedandhowsuchapersonwouldreactinthesamesituationknowingthesamefacts.[VI]ThePeoplehavetheburdenofprovingbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthekillingwasnotexcused.IfthePeoplehavenotmetthisburden,youmustndthedefendantnotguiltyof(murder/[or]manslaughter).Theinstructionsalsoprovidethedutyofthetrialcourttogivetheinstruc-tions,relatedCALCRIMinstructions,authorities(penalcodes,casecitations,secondarysources),andrelatedissues(distinctionbetweenexcusable,voluntary,andinvoluntarymanslaughter).[I1.]introducestheheatofpassionelement,whichisclaried(somewhat)in[II]and[III]asaviolentorintenseemotionthatinterfereswithrationality.In[II]and[V],theprovocationmustbesucienttointerfereintherationalityofapersonofaveragedisposition.[I2.]and[IV]highlighttemporaldimensions:theprovocationmustbesudden(orcombative)andbetemporallyclosetotheo endingaction;whilethetemporalextentoftheoverallprovocationisunder-specied,presumablythenal\trigger"provocationissudden.In[VI],theproofstandardbeyondareasonabledoubtisusetodecidewhetherthekillingwasnotexcused;thatis,ifthereissomereasonthatthekillingwasexcusedbasedontheconditions,thenthejuryshouldpassdownthisdecision.Havingpresentedtheelementsoflegalreasoningwemodel,weturntooutlinecomputationalmodelsofemotions. 3AnalysisofEmotionsTherehasbeensubstantialresearchoncomputationalmodelingofemotionsinagentsandinmodelingtheconcernsofothers.TheOrtony,Clore,andCollins(OCC)modeloftheemotions[14]decomposesemotionsaccordingtowhethertheyarereactionstotheconsequencesofeventspertainingtothegoalsofanagent,consequencesofanagent'sactions,andanagent'sattitudetowardscertainobjects.Oneofthekeyideasofthemodelisthatthesameevent/action/object(EAO)mayelicitdi erentemotionalresponsesfromdi erentagentsdependinguponhowitimpactsupontheirgoals,standards,orattitudes(GSA).Forex-ample,supposetwoagents(iandj)areheldatgunpointandthreatened;agentimayfeelfearfulwhereasagentjmayfeelangry.Furthermore,theemotionalintensityoftheemotionmayvaryaccordingtothesettingsofseveralsortsofparameters.Centralvariablesincludedesirability,praiseworthiness,andappeal-ingness;theypertaintotheintensityofemotionsregardingevents,actions,andobjectsrespectively.Globalvariables,reality,proximity,unexpectedness,arousal,e ecteveryemotiontype:withsenseofreality,theissueiswhethertheelicitingEAOactuallyoccurredorwasahypotheticalsituation;proximityrelatestohowtemporallyclosetheEAOpromptis;unexpectednessbearsonwhethertheagentwassurprisedornotwiththeEAO;andarousalexpressesthedegreetowhichtheagentisattentivepriortoandduringtheEAO.Finally,localvariablesarespecictooneemotiontype,forexample,likelihoodisassociatedwiththeemo-tiontypeshopeandfear.Eachvariablehasavalueandweightthatdetermineswhethertheemotionistriggered(theemotionalthresholdhasbeenattained)andatwhatintensity.Emotionsandtheirintensitiesalsohaveratesofdecay[17].Todeterminewhetheraparticularemotionholdsornotofanagent,eachofthevaluesofthevariablesmustbegiven,theninputtocalculatethevaluesforintensity,threshold,andrateofdecay.[15,16]reneandformalizetheOCCmodelinanagentspecicationlan-guage,introducingalogicallanguageanditssemantics.Forourpurposes,sucharepresentationprovidesthetermsthatcanbeusedinargumentationschemestojustifyemotions.Modelsofagentsemotionalstatescanbemodeledinknowl-edgebases.Forexample,fearoccurswhenanagentiwithplanbelievesthatcertainconstituentpartsof,e.g.K,maynotbeachieved,resultinginafailuretoexecutetheoverallplan.Thisisformulatedas:feari(,:K).Clearly,ifanyportionoftherepresentationfailstohold,feardoesnotholdforthatagents.Forourpurposes,itisnotonlynecessarytorepresenttheemotionsofin-dividualagents,butalsotobeabletomodeltheemotionalrepresentationsofothers,particularlythedefendantandtheabstractpersonofaveragedispositionreferredtoinCALCRIMNo.511sincethesearecomparedingivingadecision.[8]extendstheOCCmodeltomodelandreasonabouttheconcernsofoth-ers(COO),includingtheemotionsofotheragents.AgentsbuildandmaintaindatabasesofCOOsandusethemtoreasondeductivelyandabductivelyabouttheemotionsofotheragentsintheenvironment.In[8],agentspossessinter-pretativeandmanifestativepersonalities.Theinterpretivepersonalityisusedtogenerateanemotionfromacertainsituationbyreferringtothegoals,stan- onlymustthepremisesbesupportedwithreportsandevidencefromthede-fendantandwitnesses,butalsoaCOOmustbeconstructedforthatemotionthatrepresentsthepersonofaveragedisposition.TheemotionalmodelsforboththedefendantandtheCOOforthepersonofaveragedispositionarecompared.Itmay,inaddition,bearguedthatthedefendantandCOOmodelsmustberelative(e.g.child,psychologicallyabnormal,unusualcircumstance,etc),sub-classingthepersonofaveragedispositionrelativetothedefendant'sclass.Itisalsoworthnotingthatargumentationschemeswithsuchemotionaltermsamongtheirpremisesmayalsobeconsideredrhetoricalschemeswhichareusedtopersuadeothers.Forexample,ArgumentfromDistressmightbeusedasanargumentbyaprosecutingattorneythatthejuryoughttomakesomeparticulardecisioninacase.Aspartofthis,theattorneywouldconstructaCOOmodeloftheindividualbearingthedistress.Alternatively,inanArgumentfromFearAppeal,thejurymembers'ownconcernsmightbeo eredasareasonformak-ingadecision,thusrequiringtheprosecutortomodelthejurors'hypotheticalconcerns.Anotherimportantschemein[20]forourpurposesistheabductiveBackwardArgumentationScheme,whichallowsreasoningfromdatatothemostplausiblehypothesis.Premise1:Disasetofdataorsupposedfactsinacase.Premise2:EachoneofasetofaccountsA1,...,AnexplainsD.Premise3:AiistheaccountthatexplainsDmostsuccessfully.Conclusion:Aiisthemostplausiblehypothesisinthecase.Thisisparticularlyusefulinalegalsettingwherefromknownfactsandseveralcandidatetheories,wereasontoaplausiblehypothesis,fromwhichsomelegaldecisionwillfollow.Emotionalconclusionsmayappearaspartsoftheaccounts.Forexample,givenasafactthataperpetratormurderedavictim,theparticularemotionalcontextoftheactmaybesignicantinthelegaljudgment.Ifthebestaccountforthemurderincludesasignicantnegative,shockingeventwhichmight(inthepersonofaveragedisposition)induceemotionaldistress(evenwherethisisnotclaimedbythedefendant),thismightbeamitigatingfactorinthejudgment,decidinginfavourofexcusablehomicide;alternatively,ifnosuchabductiveargumenttoanemotionalstatecanbemade,theabsenceofanemotionmightbeanaggravatingfactor.Therearearangeofobjectionsonecanraiseforabductiveargumentsconcerningthefacts,theaccountsforthefacts,thesuccessranking,etc..Whileargumentationschemesforemotionshavenotbeendiscussedintheliterature,theroleofemotionsinthecourseofarguinghasbeen.In[18,19],fal-laciousargumentsareconversationalmovesthat,whileappearingtocontributetothepurposeofaconversation,interferewithit.Inthisview,emotionalar-gumentshaveanadjunctstatus:\good"emotionalargumentscanbeusedtodirectanagenttowardsaprudentcourseofactiontoachieveadesiredgoal,while\poor"emotionalargumentscandetractfromit.Thus,normatively,oneshouldonlyusegoodandavoidfallaciousargumentforms.Whilethereareargu-mentationschemeswithemotionalcontent,theemphasisisonltering\poor" IntenseAngerSchemePremise3a:AgentxhighlydisapprovesofAgenty'shighlyblameworthyactiona1.Premise3b:Agentxisintenselydispleasedthatnotgholds.Premise3c:Theactiona1whichAgentyperformedisactiona2whichresultsinnotg.Conclusionc3:AgentxwasintenselyangryatAgentywithrespecttoactiona1.EmotionallyOverwhelmedSchemePremise4a:AgentxwasintenselyangryatAgentywithrespecttoactiona1.Premise4b:Agentxperformsactiona3,whichisnotequaltoactiona1.Premise4c:Actiona1happenedinclosetemporalproximitytoactiona3.Premise4d:Actiona1wassuddenandhighlyunexpectedbyAgentx.Conclusionc4:Agentxwasemotionallyoverwhelmedwhiledoingactiona3.IrrationalitySchemePremise5a:Agentxwasemotionallyoverwhelmedwhiledoingactiona3.Premise5b:Beingemotionallyoverwhelmedprecludesbeingrational.Conclusionc5:Agentxwasirrationalatthetimeofdoingactiona3.TheschemesforDisapproval/BlameworthyandIntenseDispleasureareusedtoarguefortheconclusionofIntenseAngerScheme.TheEmo-tionallyOverwhelmedSchemeusestheintenseangerconclusionalongwithtemporalproximityandsuddennesstoconcludethattheagentisemotionallyoverwhelmed.TheIrrationalitySchemeusesthisconclusionalongwithapremiseabouttherelationshipbetweenemotionalityandrationalitytoconcludethattheagentwasirrational.Thislastconclusionisthetargetrequired(forourpurposes)forexcusablehomicide{thekillerwasintheheatofpassion,sonotrationallyincontrolof(orresponsiblefor)hisactions.Ofcourse,arangeofotherconditions(notgiven)arerequiredaswellsincethekillingmustalsobeaccidental.Finally,fortheburdenofprooftobesatised,thereoughttobenoreasonablemeanstodefeattheseargumentsforirrationalbehaviour.AfullyspelledoutrangeofargumentationschemeswouldbemoreextensivethantheseseveralschemesandincludereasoningaboutthevariouselementsoftheOCC,theCOO,andthecomparisonbetweenthedefendantandapersonofaveragedisposition.Nonetheless,itgivesaclearindicationofhowemotionalargumentationschemescanconstructed,linkedtofurtherarguments,suchastherelationshipbetweenemotionalityandrationality,andelaboratedfurther.Inourview,akeyadvantageofpresentingemotionalargumentationschemesisnotonlytheexplicitnessandclarity,butthatwecanintroduceobjectionsatkeypointswhichunderminethepresumptiveconclusions.Suchobjectionsarekeyinlegalargumentsandreachingjudgments. 6FutureWorkWeproposetocontinuetoresearchintothemanyfacetsofemotionsinlegalreasoningsothattheymaybebetterunderstoodandusedinargumentationschemesandargumentationframeworks.Achievingthiswouldfacilitateadis-cussionoftherelevantemotionspresentinthecasebythejudge,juryandlawyersratherthandismissingthemasadhocarguments.Onepotentiallyuse-fulapproachistousetheargumentationschemeswehaveintroducedalongwithargumentationschemesusedtoargueaboutstoriesandcriminalevidence[6],whereemotionalstatesofparticipantsmaybeimportantcomponents.WehaveherepresumedtheOCCandCOOaccountsofthestructuresoftheemotionsratherthanprovidingthemexplicitlyeitherasformulaeorasargumentationschemes.Norhaveweprovidedargumentationschemesforthespectrumofemotions.Clearly,thesesignicantlacunaemustbelledintomakegoodonthesubstanceofourclaims.Inparticular,itremainstobedevelopedhowtoaccountforintensity,decay,andtheroleofmoodswhichaltertheparameters.Thissaid,argumentationschemesalongthelinessuchaswehaveprovideddoseemplausibleasrepresentationofemotionalargumentsinlegalsettings,wherefullydevelopedOCCandCOOanalysesareabsent.7AcknowledgementsThesecondauthorwassupportedbytheFP7-ICT-2009-4Programme,IMPACTProject,GrantAgreementNumber247228.Theviewsexpressedare,however,thoseoftheauthorsandshouldnotbetakenasrepresentativeoftheproject.References1.Ashley,K.:ModellingLegalArgument:ReasoningwithCasesandHypotheticals.BradfordBooks/MITPress,Cambridge,MA(1990)2.Atkinson,K.,Bench-Capon,T.:Action-basedalternatingtransitionsystemsforargumentsaboutaction.In:AAAI'07:Proceedingsofthe22ndnationalconferenceonArticialintelligence.pp.24{29.AAAIPress(2007),http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~katie/aaai07.pdf3.Atkinson,K.,Bench-Capon,T.,Cartwright,D.,Wyner,A.:Semanticmodelsforpolicydeliberation.In:ProceedingsoftheThirteenthInternationalConferenceonArticialIntelligenceandLaw(ICAIL2011).Pittsburgh,PA,USA(2011),toappearinJune20114.Ben-Ze'ev,A.:Emotionsandargumentation.InformalLogic17,1{11(1995)5.Bench-Capon,T.J.M.:Persuasioninpracticalargumentusingvalue-basedargu-mentationframeworks.JournalofLogicandComputation13(3),429{448(2003)6.Bex,F.:Arguments,StoriesandCriminalEvidence:AFormalHybridTheory.Springer,Dordrecht(2011)7.Chakraborti,N.,Garland,J.:HateCrime:Impact,CausesandResponses.Sage(2009)