Appellate Court Modifications Extraction consists of, given an Appellate Court decision, identifying the proposed modifications by the upper Court of the lower Court judge’s decision. In this work, we propose a system to extract Appellate Court Modifications for Portuguese. Information extraction for legal texts has been previously addressed using different techniques and for several languages. Our proposal differs from previous work in two ways: our corpus is composed of Brazilian Appellate Court decisions, in which we look for a set of (...) modifications provided by the Court; and to automatically extract the modifications, we use a traditional Machine Learning approach and a Deep Learning approach, both as alternative solutions and as a combined solution. We tackle the Appellate Court Modifications Extraction task, experimenting with a wide variety of methods. In order to train and evaluate the system, we have built the KauaneJunior corpus, using public data disclosed by the Appellate State Court of Rio de Janeiro jurisprudence database. Our best method, which is a Bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory network combined with Conditional Random Fields, obtained an \ score of 94.79%. (shrink)

There has been considerable debate in legal philosophy about how to attribute purposes to rules. Separately, within cognitive science, there has been a growing body of research concerned with questions about how people ordinarily attribute purposes. Here, we argue that these two separate fields might be connected by experimental jurisprudence. Across four studies, we find evidence for the claim that people use the same criteria to attribute purposes to physical objects and to rules. In both cases, purpose attributions appear to (...) be governed not so much by original intention or by moral value as by current practice. We argue that these findings in the cognitive science of purpose attribution have implications for jurisprudential questions involving purposivist legal interpretation. (shrink)

Recent literature in experimental philosophy has postulated the existence of the abstract/concrete paradox : the tendency to activate inconsistent intuitions depending on whether a problem to be analyzed is framed in abstract terms or is described as a concrete case. One recent study supports the thesis that this effect influences judicial decision-making, including decision-making by professional judges, in areas such as interpretation of constitutional principles and application of clear-cut rules. Here, following the existing literature in legal theory, we argue that (...) the susceptibility to such an effect might depend on whether decision-makers operate in a legal system characterized by the formalist or particularist approach to legal interpretation, with formalist systems being less susceptible to the effect. To test this hypothesis, we compare the results of experimental studies on ACP run on samples from two countries differing in legal culture: Poland and Brazil. The lack of significant differences between those results suggests that ACP is a robust effect in the legal context. (shrink)