Judges or experts? A comparison about legal constructions of truths in hard cases

• Autor(a) principal: de Barros, Marco Antonio Loschiavo Leme
• Data de Publicação: 2017
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Revista Eletrônica Direito e Sociedade - REDES
• DOI: 10.18316/redes.v5i2.3739
• Texto Completo: https://revistas.unilasalle.edu.br/index.php/redes/article/view/3739
• topic: Experts; Administrative Council for Economic Defense; Decision-making.; Direito e Sociologia jurídica; Experts; Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica; Processo Decisório.

The paper discusses the argument that experts are better decision-makers in cases that involve scientific knowledge in relation to judges. This is a debate about the allocation of decision in complex society. The study underscores the examination of administrative courts in Brazil, as well as a comparison with the Judiciary. The main examination is the Court of the Administrative Council of Economic Defense. After describing the decision-making practice of this court, the study reveals the tensions concealed by the counselors’ actions from the perspective of the relation between law and science. The question is how the law operates with scientific knowledge for decision making. The paper argues that both experts and judges share problems related to the construction of legal truths in hard cases, either because administrative courts mimic the structures of the Judiciary or to reveal the fragility of the operation of scientific knowledge by law. Rather than believing that neutrality and security prevail in the performance of experts within the legal system, it is preferable to denounce the ambiguities that are reproduced in decision-making practices in order to effectively produce adequate structures for the future.