Editorial of dossier “Epistemic Injustice in Criminal Procedure”

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW
Andrés Páez, Janaina Matida
{"title":"Editorial of dossier “Epistemic Injustice in Criminal Procedure”","authors":"Andrés Páez, Janaina Matida","doi":"10.22197/rbdpp.v9i1.821","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is a growing awareness that there are many subtle forms of exclusion and partiality that affect the correct workings of a judicial system. The concept of epistemic injustice, introduced by the philosopher Miranda Fricker, is a useful conceptual tool to understand forms of judicial partiality that often go undetected. In this paper, we present Fricker’s original theory and some of the applications of the concept of epistemic injustice in legal processes. In particular, we want to show that the seed planted by Fricker has flourished into a rich field of study in which the concept is used to analyze many different phenomena in law, not always following the original characterization provided by her. This has led to a distinction between what we will call the narrow version of the concept, which is closer to Fricker’s original account, and the wider version of epistemic injustice, which is a more controversial notion because it is always on the verge of morphing into other well-known concepts like sexism, racial discrimination, oppression, silencing, and gaslighting. We will show that the value of the narrow version is mostly theoretical, and that in order to use the concept of epistemic injustice one must adopt a more liberal understanding of it.","PeriodicalId":41933,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v9i1.821","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

There is a growing awareness that there are many subtle forms of exclusion and partiality that affect the correct workings of a judicial system. The concept of epistemic injustice, introduced by the philosopher Miranda Fricker, is a useful conceptual tool to understand forms of judicial partiality that often go undetected. In this paper, we present Fricker’s original theory and some of the applications of the concept of epistemic injustice in legal processes. In particular, we want to show that the seed planted by Fricker has flourished into a rich field of study in which the concept is used to analyze many different phenomena in law, not always following the original characterization provided by her. This has led to a distinction between what we will call the narrow version of the concept, which is closer to Fricker’s original account, and the wider version of epistemic injustice, which is a more controversial notion because it is always on the verge of morphing into other well-known concepts like sexism, racial discrimination, oppression, silencing, and gaslighting. We will show that the value of the narrow version is mostly theoretical, and that in order to use the concept of epistemic injustice one must adopt a more liberal understanding of it.
《刑事诉讼中的认识不公》论文集编辑
人们越来越意识到,存在许多微妙形式的排斥和偏袒,影响司法系统的正确运作。哲学家米兰达·弗里克提出的认识不公正概念是一个有用的概念工具,可以用来理解司法偏袒的形式,而这些形式往往未被发现。在本文中,我们介绍了弗里克的原始理论以及认识不公正概念在法律过程中的一些应用。特别是,我们想表明,弗里克播下的种子已经发展成为一个丰富的研究领域,在这个领域中,这个概念被用来分析法律中的许多不同现象,而不是总是遵循她提供的原始特征。这导致了我们将称之为狭义的概念和广义的认识不公正之间的区别,前者更接近弗里克的原始描述,后者是一个更具争议的概念,因为它总是处于演变成其他众所周知的概念的边缘,如性别歧视、种族歧视、压迫、沉默和煤气灯。我们将表明,狭义版本的价值主要是理论性的,为了使用认识不公正的概念,我们必须对其进行更自由的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
66.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信