24634 - Logic and Legal Reasoning

Learning outcomes

Students will be introduced to a) the main kinds of arguments, their logical structure (schemes of argumentation); b) the fundamentals of rhetoric and dialectic, and c) their application to legal argumentation.

Course contents

Logic and argumentation are essential in legal practice. Applying law to concrete cases requires reasoning about its contents and the facts that, from time to time, are relevant, so as to establish what the former demands for the latter. Having completed this reasoning, we must be able to justify the conclusion we have reached, using valid and convincing arguments even in the face of possible counter-arguments. This course provides the instruments to do both, combining the study of the most relevant models of legal reasoning and argumentation with the critical analysis of their main applications. To this end the course will be structured in two modules, both organized so as to combine theoretical and practical in-class sessions.

Module I – Reasoning and arguing about legal norms: How should we reason about the law when applying it to concrete cases? And how should we justify our conclusions, and defend them when challenged?
Module I addresses these questions through the analysis of the logical dimension (deduction, induction, abduction) and the argumentative dimension (in particular, interpretative arguments) of legal reasoning. On this basis, it delves into specific topics (legislative intent, analogy, rules and principles, proportionality and balancing, originalism), relying on the in-class reading and discussion of selected judicial cases and decisions.
The aim is to give students the tools to better understand how we reason about norms and what problems arise when a legal conclusion has to be justified — or challenged.

Module II – Reasoning and arguing about facts: How do we reason about the facts of a legal case? And how do we decide whether a fact has been proven?
Module II takes up these questions by showing how probability figures in legal reasoning and in the assessment of evidence. Drawing on real cases, it addresses central issues such as the "more likely than not" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards, the judge's free evaluation of evidence, and the potential role of artificial intelligence in litigation.
The aim is to give students the tools to better understand how we reason about facts and what problems arise when deciding what has actually been proven.

Readings/Bibliography

D. Canale, G. Tuzet, La giustificazione della decisione giudiziale Giappichelli, 2019

G. Tuzet, La prova ragionata, Giuffrè, 2023, chapters I, IX, X, XI, XII  

Teaching methods

Classes will cover course contents and include the discussion and critical analysis of selected readings and judicial decisions in class.

During the course, there will be several practical sessions in which we will apply to concrete cases the models and tools of reasoning and justification that we will analyze and discuss during classes.

Further information about the course will be provided in class and published online.

This is a second-semester course.

Assessment methods

The evaluation will consist of an oral exam testing the students' understanding of the complex issues discussed during the course as well as their knowledge of the main theories on those issues. Hence, the exam will not necessarily dwell on specific textual passages but will rather test the students' ability to elaborate an argument and to understand the problems connected to it. Normally, the oral examination consists of a series of questions on the texts of the course, and the final grade is the result of an average of the results of the answers to these questions. When students achieve an organic view of the issues addressed in lectures, demonstrating a mastery of the specific terminology and conceptual framework of the discipline, they will be assessed with marks of excellence. Lack of concision and the usage of language and terminology which are not always appropriate will lead to a fair evaluation; knowledge gaps and inappropriate language - although in a context of acceptable knowledge - will not go beyond the grade threshold “sufficient”. Knowledge gaps (such as to have ignored some of the texts in the program for the course), inappropriate language, and lack of any overall view of the basic issues discussed in textbooks and during the course that will lead to an insufficient assessment.

Final grading criteria:

- sufficient or barely sufficient knowledge on the programme, limited reasoning ability, some difficulties in using technical and legal language → 18-21/30;

- fairly good knowledge of the programme, adequate critical reasoning ability, sound use of technical and legal language → 22-25/30;

- comprehensive knowledge of the programme, notable reasoning ability, good command of technical and legal language → 26-29/30;

- extensive knowledge of the programme, very good reasoning ability, and ability to fully master technical-legal language → 30-30L/30.

Students registering for the exam must so do using the University's Almaesami system.

Teaching tools

Slides and handouts summarizing the course contents; discussion and critical analysis of selected readings and judicial decisions in class; use of online platforms to access and exchange information about the course.

All information relative to the course, along with any course material, will be available online at https://iol.unibo.it/ or https://www.unibo.it/sitoweb/c.valentini

Students with learning disorders or other impairments who need special aids can point that out to the professor, who will make appropriate arrangements.

Office hours

See the website of Chiara Valentini

See the website of Maria Victoria Inostroza