Palabras clave:
injusticia epistémica, razonamiento judicial, lagunas normativas, lagunas axiológicas, relevancia, valoración de la pruebaDerechos de autor 2025 Rachel Herdy
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Resumen
Este artículo ofrece un marco teórico para comprender las injusticias hermenéuticas en el ámbito judicial, diferenciando entre dos tipos principales: normativa y probatoria. La injusticia hermenéutica normativa surge cuando el derecho positivo ignora o distorsiona el significado de experiencias sociales marginadas, creando lagunas normativas o axiológicas. En cambio, la injusticia hermenéutica probatoria se relaciona con estereotipos y prejuicios que influyen en las generalizaciones utilizadas por los juzgadores para evaluar la relevancia y el peso de las pruebas. Distinguir entre los tipos de injusticia hermenéutica –normativa y probatoria– es crucial no solo en términos analíticos, para lograr una comprensión más precisa del fenómeno y su impacto en el razonamiento judicial, sino también para pensar en las diferentes formas de combatirlas. Finalmente, se destaca la importancia de mantener una perspectiva crítica que, sin renunciar a la racionalidad epistémica, siga el enfoque de Miranda Fricker, diferenciando entre el uso legítimo de la razón y su distorsión por relaciones de poder.
Descargas
Citas
Aguiló Regla, Josep. 2012. Teoría general de las fuentes del derecho (y el orden jurídico). Barcelona: Planeta.
Alchourrón, Carlos; Bulygin, Eugenio. 1971. Normative Systems. Viena: Springer.
Anderson, Terence. 1999. On Generalizations I: a Preliminary Exploration. 40 South Texas Law Review. 455.
Anderson, Terence; Schum, David; Twining, William. 2005. Analysis of Evidence (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arcila-Valenzuela, Migdalia and Páez, Andrés. 2022. Testimonial Injustice: The Facts of the Matter. Review of Philosophy and Psychology.
Arena, Federico José. 2022. Estereotipos y hechos en el proceso. Manual sobre los efectos de los estereotipos en la impartición de justicia. Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación.
Bix, Brian. 1999. H.L.A. Hart and the Hermeneutic Turn in Legal Theory. 52 SMU L. Rev. 167.
Brownmiller, Susan. 1990. In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution. Aurum Press.
Canale, Damiano y Tuzet, Giovanni. 2024. How many a contrario arguments? In Duarte d’Almeida et al.(ed). Research Handbook on Legal Argumentation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Chiassoni, Pierluigi. 2019. Interpretation Without Truth: A Realistic Enquiry. Springer.
Coloma, Rodrigo; Rimoldi, Florencia. 2023. ¿Es útil el concepto de injusticia epistémica para los procedimientos penales? Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v9i1.789
Cook, Blanche Bong (2019). Stop Traffic: Using Expert Witnesses to Disrupt Intersectional Vulnerability In Sex Trafficking Prosecutions. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, 24. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38D795B35
Dahlman, Christian. 2017. Unacceptable Generalizations in Arguments on Legal Evidence. Argumentation 31:83–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9399-1
De Brasi, Leandro. 2023. Jueces e injusticias epistémicas: recomendaciones institucionales y la interdependencia de lo individual y lo estructural. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v9i1.794
Dotson, Kristie. 2012. A Cautionary Tale: On Limiting Epistemic Oppression. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 33(1), 24-47. https://doi.org/10.5250/fronjwomestud.33.1.0024
Dular, Nicole. 2023. One Too Many: Hermeneutical Excess as Hermeneutical Injustice. Hypatia, 38.2, pp. 423–38. 10.1017/hyp.2023.20
Falbo, Arianna. Hermeneutical Injustice: Distortion and Conceptual Aptness. Hypatia, 37.2, 2022, pp. 343-63. https://doi.org/10.1017/hyp.2022.4.
Ferrer Beltrán, J. 2007. La valoración racional de la prueba. Marcial Pons.
Fricker, M. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001
Fricker, M. 2013. Epistemic Justice as a Condition of Political Freedom? Synthese, 190(7), 1317-1332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0227-3
Fricker, M. 2016. Epistemic Injustice and the Preservation of Ignorance. En M. Blaauw & R. Peels (Eds.), The Epistemic Dimensions of Ignorance (pp. 160-177). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511820076.010
Fricker, M. 2017. Evolving Concepts of Epistemic Injustice. En I. J. Kidd, J. Medina and G. Pohlhaus, Jr. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice. Routledge & CRC Press.
Gonzales Rose, Jasmine. 2021. Race, Evidence, and Epistemic Injustice. In C. Dahlman, A. Stein y G. Tuzet (Eds.). Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford University Press.
Gonzalez Lagier, Daniel. 2013. Hechos y conceptos: sobre la relevancia de los conceptos para la prueba de los hechos. En Questio facti: ensayos sobre prueba, causalidad y acción. México: Fontamara.
Guastini, Riccardo. 2014. Interpretar y argumentar. Traducción de Silvina Álvarez Medina. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales.
Herdy, Rachel y Castelliano, Carolina. 2023. ¿Existen injusticias hermenéuticas en el derecho?: Una lectura realista de la ininteligibilidad judicial de experiencias marginadas. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal 9(1). https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v9i1.796
Herdy, Rachel. 2024. Testimonial Injustice in Evidential Reasoning: A Reply to Federico Picinali. Quaestio Facti. Revista Internacional sobre Razonamiento Probatorio, n.º 7 (junio):153-72. https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i7.23031.
Hock Lai, Ho. 2012. A Philosophy of Evidence Law: Justice in the Search for Truth. Oxford University Press.
Horan, Jacqueline; Goodman-Delahunty, Jane. 2020. Expert evidence to counteract jury misconceptions about consent in sexual assault cases: Failures and lessons learned. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 43(2), 707-737. https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.238241189133797
Iturralde, Victoria. 1989. Lenguaje legal y sistema jurídico. Cuestiones relativas a la aplicación de la ley. Madrid: Tecnos.
Jenkins, Katharine. 2017. Rape Myths and Domestic Abuse Myths as Hermeneutical Injustices. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 34(2), 191-205. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12174
Koshan, Jennifer. 2023. Challenging Myths and Stereotypes in Domestic Violence Cases. Canadian Journal of Family Law, 35, 33. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/cajfl35&id=43&div=&collection=
Lackey, Jennifer. 2018. Credibility and the Distribution of Epistemic Goods. In K. McCain (Ed.), Believing in Accordance with the Evidence: New Essays on Evidentialism (pp. 145-168). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95993-1_10
Lackey, Jennifer. 2023. Criminal Testimonial Injustice. Oxford University Press.
Lackey, Jennifer. 2022. Eyewitness Testimony and Epistemic Agency. Noûs, 56.3, pp. 696–715. doi:10.1111/nous.12380
Lackey, Jennifer. 2020. False Confessions and Testimonial Injustice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 110(1), pp. 43-68. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol110/iss1/4.
Larroucau Torres, Jorge. 2022. El complemento entre la prueba tasada y la sana crítica en la justicia de familia chilena. Ius et Praxis [online]. 2022, vol.28, n.1, pp.195-215.
Levin, Benjamin. 2022. Criminal Justice Expertise. U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 22-2.
MacCormick, Neil. 2015. Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford University Press.
Mason, Rebecca. 2011. Two Kinds of Unknowing. Hypatia, 26(2), 294-307. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23016547
Matida, Janaina; Herdy, Rachel. 2019. As inferências probatórias: compromissos epistêmicos, normativos e interpretativos. Revista do Ministério Público do Estado do Rio de Janeiro nº 73, jul./set. 2019.
Medina, José. 2011. The Relevance of Credibility Excess in a Proportional View of Epistemic Injustice: Differential Epistemic Authority and the Social Imaginary. Social Epistemology, 25(1), 15-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2010.534568
Medina, José. 2012. Hermeneutical Injustice and Polyphonic Contextualism: Social Silences and Shared Hermeneutical Responsibilities. Social Epistemology, 26(2), 201-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/026 91728.2011.652214
Medina, José. 2013. The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and Resistant Imaginations. Oxford University Press.
Medina, José. 2021. Agential Epistemic Injustice and Collective Epistemic Resistance in the Criminal Justice System. Social Epistemology, 35(2), 185-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2020.1839594
Mercier, Hugo. 2020. Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe. Princeton University Press.
Miller, Channel. 2019. Know My Name: A Memoir. Viking.
Monahan, John; Walker, Laurens; Mitchell, Gregory. 2009. The Limits of Social Framework Evidence. Law, Probability and Risk, 8(4), 307-321. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgp020
Owusu-Bempah, A. (2022). The Irrelevance of Rap. Criminal Law Review, 2, 130-151. https://doi.org/10.3316/agispt.20220131061222
Owusu-Bempah, Picinali, F. (2024). Evidential reasoning, testimonial injustice and the fairness of the criminal trial. Quaestio Facti. Revista Internacional sobre Razonamiento Probatorio, 6, Article 6. https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i6.22888
Páez, Andrés; Matida, Janaina. 2023. Epistemic injustice in criminal procedure. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal 9 (1):11-38.
Picinali, Federico. 2024. Evidential Reasoning, Testimonial Injustice and the Fairness of the Criminal Trial. Quaestio Facti. Revista Internacional Sobre Razonamiento Probatorio, 6, 201-235. https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i6.22888
Pohlhaus, Jr., Gaile. 2012. Relational Knowing and Epistemic Injustice: Toward a Theory of Willful Hermeneutical Ignorance. Hypatia, 27(4), 715-735. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01222.x
Rovatti, Pablo. 2024. Sobre la supuesta «pureza epistemológica» de la valoración de la prueba: a propósito de una tesis de Jordi Ferrer Beltrán Doxa. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, (48), 467-498. https://doi.org/10.14198/DOXA2024.48.1
Schauer, Frederick. 2006. Profiles, Probabilities, and Stereotypes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Schum, David. 1994. The Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Shecaira, Fábio Perin. 2024. Legal Scholarship as a Source of Law. Springer-Verlag.
Simion, Mona. 2019. Hermeneutical injustice as basing failure. En Carter, J. A. and Bondy, P. (eds.) Well Founded Belief: New Essays on the Epistemic Basing Relation. Routledge.
Taruffo, Michele. 2003. La prueba de los hechos. Editorial Trotta.
Tuerkheimer, Deborah. 2023. Victim, Reconstructed: Sex Crimes Experts and the New Rape Paradigm (SSRN Scholarly Paper 4591233). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4591233
Vidmar, N. J., & Schuller, R. A. 1989. Juries and Expert Evidence: Social Framework Testimony. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52(4), 133-176. https://doi.org/10.2307/1191909
Walker, Laurens; Monahan, John. 1987. Social Frameworks: A New Use of Social Science in Law. Virginia Law Review, 73, 559-598. https://doi.org/10.2307/1072923
Wróblewski, Jerzy. 1992. The Judicial Application of Law. Dordrecht: Springer.