Legal reasoning 1
Reasoning with exceptions is not only important in everyday reasoning, but also in legal reasoning. Which reasons are considered important enough in order to decide to not punish somebody who has committed an illegal act? Are there differences between laypeople and experts? To what extent does reasoning with exceptions and counterexamples in legal reasoning differ from everyday reasoning?
Legal rules are defeasible: previously drawn conclusions may be withdrawn in light of new evidence. For instance, given the conditional “If a person kills another human, then the person should be punished for manslaughter” and the fact “A person kills another human”, it is rational to conclude that the offender should be punished for manslaughter. However, in light of exculpatory circumstances (e.g., self-defense) this conclusion has to be withdrawn and the offender not punished. Experts learn to do this during their legal studies. But how do laypeople weight exculpatory circumstances? In this project we investigate how prior knowledge, emotions, and phrasing affect legal reasoning.
Contact: Dr. L. Estefania Gazzo Castaneda, M. Sc. Benjamin Sklarek, Prof. Dr. Markus Knauff
Project number: KN 465/10-1