A New Model based on Subjective Logic and Neutrosophic Measure for Legal Reasoning

Abstract

Legal sciences are the theoretical body of law. This branch of knowledge studies the rules and principles that govern the correct functioning of society. The proper administration of justice is essential for the satisfaction of the subjective and objective needs of citizens. It ensures that members of society fulfill their duties and can satisfy their rights before their families and other citizens. The purpose of this paper is the presentation of a neutrosophy-based model for representing decision-making within a trial, specifically concerning both, the sufficient proof and weighing of pieces of evidence. Concepts based on the neutrosophic measure are used to enrich an earlier model that used subjective logic. We follow the principle that neutrosophic theory allows for greater precision in legal reasoning because it makes it possible to explicitly differentiate and evaluate which parts are determined and known and which parts are indeterminate and unknown. Keeping in mind that a trial is plagued with unknown, imprecise, confusing, contradictory, and paradoxical elements; and these are the ones that must be clarified with proofs and pieces of evidence. This model can be the basis of a Decision Support System or an Expert System