IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v10y2023i1d10.1057_s41599-023-01693-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using the interest theory of rights and Hohfeldian taxonomy to address a gap in machine learning methods for legal document analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ahmed Izzidien

    (The University of Cambridge)

Abstract

Rights and duties are essential features of legal documents. Machine learning algorithms have been increasingly applied to extract information from such texts. Currently, their main focus is on named entity recognition, sentiment analysis, and the classification of court cases to predict court outcome. In this paper it is argued that until the essential features of such texts are captured, their analysis can remain bottle-necked by the very technology being used to assess them. As such, the use of legal theory to identify the most pertinent dimensions of such texts is proposed. Specifically, the interest theory of rights, and the first-order Hohfeldian taxonomy of legal relations. These principal legal dimensions allow for a stratified representation of knowledge, making them ideal for the abstractions needed for machine learning. This study considers how such dimensions may be identified. To do so it implements a novel heuristic based in philosophy coupled with language models. Hohfeldian relations of ‘rights-duties’ vs. ‘privileges-no-rights’ are determined to be identifiable. Classification of each type of relation to accuracies of 92.5% is found using Sentence Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers. Testing is carried out on religious discrimination policy texts in the United Kingdom.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahmed Izzidien, 2023. "Using the interest theory of rights and Hohfeldian taxonomy to address a gap in machine learning methods for legal document analysis," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-01693-z
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-023-01693-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-023-01693-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-023-01693-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marc Queudot & Éric Charton & Marie-Jean Meurs, 2020. "Improving Access to Justice with Legal Chatbots," Stats, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Mustard, David B, 2001. "Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(1), pages 285-314, April.
    3. Brusseau, James & Craveiro, Giovana Meloni, 2022. "Why automatic AI ethics evaluations are coming, and how they will work," Journal of AI, Robotics & Workplace Automation, Henry Stewart Publications, vol. 1(4), pages 342-349, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shamena Anwar & Patrick Bayer & Randi Hjalmarsson, 2012. "The Impact of Jury Race in Criminal Trials," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(2), pages 1017-1055.
    2. Eduardo Gandelman & Nestor Gandelman & Julie Rothschild, 2008. "Diferencias entre los sexos en los procedimientos judiciales: Pruebas de campo de causas de vivienda en Uruguay," Research Department Publications 3251, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    3. Vadim Volkov, 2016. "Legal and Extralegal Origins of Sentencing Disparities: Evidence from Russia's Criminal Courts," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 637-665, December.
    4. Bindler, Anna Louisa & Hjalmarsson, Randi & Machin, Stephen Jonathan & Rubio, Melissa, 2023. "Murphy's Law or luck of the Irish? Disparate treatment of the Irish in 19th century courts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121339, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Ryon, Stephanie Bontrager & Chiricos, Ted & Siennick, Sonja E. & Barrick, Kelle & Bales, William, 2017. "Sentencing in light of collateral consequences: Does age matter?," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-11.
    6. Simone Bertoli & Morgane Laouenan & Jérôme Valette, 2022. "Border Apprehensions and Federal Sentencing of Hispanic Citizens in the United States," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03818735, HAL.
    7. Mariagiovanna Baccara & Allan Collard-Wexler & Leonardo Felli & Leeat Yariv, 2010. "Gender and Racial Biases: Evidence from Child Adoption," CESifo Working Paper Series 2921, CESifo.
    8. Eren, Ozkan & Mocan, Naci, 2020. "Judge Peer Effects in the Courthouse," IZA Discussion Papers 13937, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Lochner, L., 1999. "Education, Work, and Crime: Theory and Evidence," RCER Working Papers 465, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    10. Shawn D. Bushway & Emily G. Owens & Anne Morrison Piehl, 2012. "Sentencing Guidelines and Judicial Discretion: Quasi‐Experimental Evidence from Human Calculation Errors," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 291-319, June.
    11. Brendon McConnell & Imran Rasul, 2021. "Contagious Animosity in the Field: Evidence from the Federal Criminal Justice System," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(3), pages 739-785.
    12. Vickers, Chris, 2016. "Socioeconomic status and judicial disparities in England and Wales, 1870–1910," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 32-53.
    13. Sarah Marx Quintanar, 2011. "Do Driver Decisions in Traffic Court Motivate Police Discrimination in Issuing Speeding Tickets?," Departmental Working Papers 2011-13, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    14. Shamena Anwar & Patrick Bayer & Randi Hjalmarsson, 2010. "Jury Discrimination in Criminal Trials," Working Papers 671, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    15. Shana M. Judge & Jenna L. Dole, 2022. "Charging sex traffickers under federal law: What dispositions should we expect when applying theories on prosecutorial decision‐making?," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 677-715, September.
    16. Artūras Tereškinas & Rūta Vaičiūnienė & Liubovė Jarutienė, 2022. "Gender and Sentencing in Lithuania: More Mercy for Women?," Laws, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-15, September.
    17. Max Schanzenbach, 2005. "Racial and Sex Disparities in Prison Sentences: The Effect of District-Level Judicial Demographics," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 57-92, January.
    18. Ramos Maqueda,Manuel & Chen,Daniel Li, 2021. "The Role of Justice in Development : The Data Revolution," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9720, The World Bank.
    19. Ahrsjö, Ulrika & Niknami, Susan & Palme, Mårten, 2022. "Identity in Court Decision-Making," Working Paper Series 4/2022, Stockholm University, Swedish Institute for Social Research.
    20. Lance Lochner, 2010. "Education Policy and Crime," NBER Chapters, in: Controlling Crime: Strategies and Tradeoffs, pages 465-515, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-01693-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.