Judges and epistemic injustices: Institutional recommendations and the interdependence of the individual and the structural
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2023 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | spa |
Título da fonte: | Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/794 |
Resumo: | Epistemic injustices concern a wrong done to someone specifically in their capacity as an epistemic subject; that is, as a subject that participates in the production, maintenance and transmission of epistemic goods. Assuming that one of the goals, but certainly not the only one, of the judicial system is to promote decisions that are reasonably plausible, epistemic injustices interfere with such goal. One aim of this paper is to offer a couple of institutional recommendations that contribute to mitigate the epistemic injustices that judges could commit. These recommendations are based on empirical data from the social sciences. Another aim is to argue, partly on the basis of those interventions, that neither the individualist approach nor the structuralist approach, which locate the problem and the necessary changes to remedy it in the individual’s mind or the structures of our environment (respectively), are adequately understood. In particular, this article answers the question: what kind of interventions, given the empirical data available, is more likely to be efficient?, showing that such interventions are hybrid, combining the individual and the structural, given the interdependence of the individual and the structural, and offering two illustrative examples of diverse strategies of this sort of interventions. |
id |
IBRASPP-1_cf42a75d84d473d49a70dadd8da08b52 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.revista.ibraspp.com.br:article/794 |
network_acronym_str |
IBRASPP-1 |
network_name_str |
Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Judges and epistemic injustices: Institutional recommendations and the interdependence of the individual and the structural Jueces e injusticias epistémicas: Recomendaciones institucionales y la interdependencia de lo individual y lo estructuralinjustica epistémicajuezprejuiciosrecomendaciones institucionalesenfoques individualista y estructuralistaepistemic injusticejudgeprejudicesinstitutional recommendationsindividual and structural approachesEpistemic injustices concern a wrong done to someone specifically in their capacity as an epistemic subject; that is, as a subject that participates in the production, maintenance and transmission of epistemic goods. Assuming that one of the goals, but certainly not the only one, of the judicial system is to promote decisions that are reasonably plausible, epistemic injustices interfere with such goal. One aim of this paper is to offer a couple of institutional recommendations that contribute to mitigate the epistemic injustices that judges could commit. These recommendations are based on empirical data from the social sciences. Another aim is to argue, partly on the basis of those interventions, that neither the individualist approach nor the structuralist approach, which locate the problem and the necessary changes to remedy it in the individual’s mind or the structures of our environment (respectively), are adequately understood. In particular, this article answers the question: what kind of interventions, given the empirical data available, is more likely to be efficient?, showing that such interventions are hybrid, combining the individual and the structural, given the interdependence of the individual and the structural, and offering two illustrative examples of diverse strategies of this sort of interventions.Las injusticias epistémicas causan un mal a alguien en su condición de sujeto epistémico; es decir, como sujeto que participa en la producción, mantención y transmisión de bienes epistémicos. Asumiendo que una de las metas, pero no ciertamente la única, del sistema judicial es promover decisiones que sean razonablemente plausibles, las injusticias epistémicas interfieren con dicha meta. Un objetivo de este artículo es ofrecer un par de recomendaciones institucionales que contribuyen a disminuir las injusticias epistémicas que los jueces pudieran cometer. Estas recomendaciones se basan en data empírica proveniente de las ciencias sociales. Otro objetivo es argumentar, en parte en base a esas intervenciones, que ni el enfoque individualista ni el estructuralista, que ubican el problema y los cambios necesarios para remediarlo en la mente del individuo o las estructuras de nuestro entorno (respectivamente), son adecuadamente concebidos. En particular, el artículo responde a la pregunta: ¿qué tipo de intervenciones, dada la data empírica disponible, es más probable que sea eficiente?, mostrando que esas intervenciones son híbridas, combinando lo individual y lo estructural, dada la interdependencia de lo individual y lo estructural, y ofreciendo dos ejemplos ilustrativos de distintas estrategias de este tipo de intervenciones.Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal - IBRASPP2023-03-31info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/79410.22197/rbdpp.v9i1.794Brazilian Journal of Criminal Procedure; Vol. 9 No. 1 (2023)Revista Brasileña de Derecho Procesal Penal; Vol. 9 Núm. 1 (2023)Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal; V. 9 N. 1 (2023)Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal; v. 9 n. 1 (2023)2525-510X10.22197/rbdpp.v9i1reponame:Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online)instname:Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal (IBRASPP)instacron:IBRASPPspahttps://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/794/481Copyright (c) 2023 Leandro De Brasihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessDe Brasi, LeandroDe Brasi, Leandro2023-03-31T13:37:39Zoai:ojs.revista.ibraspp.com.br:article/794Revistahttps://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPPONGhttps://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/oairevista@ibraspp.com.br2525-510X2359-3881opendoar:2023-03-31T13:37:39Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) - Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal (IBRASPP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Judges and epistemic injustices: Institutional recommendations and the interdependence of the individual and the structural Jueces e injusticias epistémicas: Recomendaciones institucionales y la interdependencia de lo individual y lo estructural |
title |
Judges and epistemic injustices: Institutional recommendations and the interdependence of the individual and the structural |
spellingShingle |
Judges and epistemic injustices: Institutional recommendations and the interdependence of the individual and the structural De Brasi, Leandro injustica epistémica juez prejuicios recomendaciones institucionales enfoques individualista y estructuralista epistemic injustice judge prejudices institutional recommendations individual and structural approaches |
title_short |
Judges and epistemic injustices: Institutional recommendations and the interdependence of the individual and the structural |
title_full |
Judges and epistemic injustices: Institutional recommendations and the interdependence of the individual and the structural |
title_fullStr |
Judges and epistemic injustices: Institutional recommendations and the interdependence of the individual and the structural |
title_full_unstemmed |
Judges and epistemic injustices: Institutional recommendations and the interdependence of the individual and the structural |
title_sort |
Judges and epistemic injustices: Institutional recommendations and the interdependence of the individual and the structural |
author |
De Brasi, Leandro |
author_facet |
De Brasi, Leandro |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
De Brasi, Leandro De Brasi, Leandro |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
injustica epistémica juez prejuicios recomendaciones institucionales enfoques individualista y estructuralista epistemic injustice judge prejudices institutional recommendations individual and structural approaches |
topic |
injustica epistémica juez prejuicios recomendaciones institucionales enfoques individualista y estructuralista epistemic injustice judge prejudices institutional recommendations individual and structural approaches |
description |
Epistemic injustices concern a wrong done to someone specifically in their capacity as an epistemic subject; that is, as a subject that participates in the production, maintenance and transmission of epistemic goods. Assuming that one of the goals, but certainly not the only one, of the judicial system is to promote decisions that are reasonably plausible, epistemic injustices interfere with such goal. One aim of this paper is to offer a couple of institutional recommendations that contribute to mitigate the epistemic injustices that judges could commit. These recommendations are based on empirical data from the social sciences. Another aim is to argue, partly on the basis of those interventions, that neither the individualist approach nor the structuralist approach, which locate the problem and the necessary changes to remedy it in the individual’s mind or the structures of our environment (respectively), are adequately understood. In particular, this article answers the question: what kind of interventions, given the empirical data available, is more likely to be efficient?, showing that such interventions are hybrid, combining the individual and the structural, given the interdependence of the individual and the structural, and offering two illustrative examples of diverse strategies of this sort of interventions. |
publishDate |
2023 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2023-03-31 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/794 10.22197/rbdpp.v9i1.794 |
url |
https://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/794 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.22197/rbdpp.v9i1.794 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
spa |
language |
spa |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/794/481 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2023 Leandro De Brasi https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2023 Leandro De Brasi https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal - IBRASPP |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal - IBRASPP |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Journal of Criminal Procedure; Vol. 9 No. 1 (2023) Revista Brasileña de Derecho Procesal Penal; Vol. 9 Núm. 1 (2023) Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal; V. 9 N. 1 (2023) Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal; v. 9 n. 1 (2023) 2525-510X 10.22197/rbdpp.v9i1 reponame:Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) instname:Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal (IBRASPP) instacron:IBRASPP |
instname_str |
Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal (IBRASPP) |
instacron_str |
IBRASPP |
institution |
IBRASPP |
reponame_str |
Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) |
collection |
Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) - Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal (IBRASPP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
revista@ibraspp.com.br |
_version_ |
1809281941725249536 |