性同意与强奸事实调查中的认知偏袒

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW
Talita Ferrantelli
{"title":"性同意与强奸事实调查中的认知偏袒","authors":"Talita Ferrantelli","doi":"10.22197/rbdpp.v9i3.776","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Feminist legal theory has contested rape laws and notions of sexual consent to better reflect the experiences of survivors and address power distortions in legal frameworks that perpetuate women’s subordination. In this paper, I explore an alternative form of criticism to consent-based rape laws and biases within legal systems. I argue that the justifications that are used to select and weigh evidence in rape cases are epistemically suspect because of the unreliability of their epistemic sources. My argument, building on radical realist social analysis in political theory, aims to unveil an epistemic defect in rape evidentiary procedures, which I call epistemic partiality. I suggest that this epistemic defect brings salient reasons to challenge rape laws based on ideals of consent. I hope to show that a radical realist approach may bring reasons to challenge rape laws and flaws in evidentiary systems without the need to centrally agree with or rely on feminist commitments and political goals. This type of criticism may effectively bypass certain limitations of feminist theory and potentially add to discussions focused on power distortions within legal systems.","PeriodicalId":41933,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sexual Consent and Epistemic Partiality in Rape Fact-Finding\",\"authors\":\"Talita Ferrantelli\",\"doi\":\"10.22197/rbdpp.v9i3.776\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Feminist legal theory has contested rape laws and notions of sexual consent to better reflect the experiences of survivors and address power distortions in legal frameworks that perpetuate women’s subordination. In this paper, I explore an alternative form of criticism to consent-based rape laws and biases within legal systems. I argue that the justifications that are used to select and weigh evidence in rape cases are epistemically suspect because of the unreliability of their epistemic sources. My argument, building on radical realist social analysis in political theory, aims to unveil an epistemic defect in rape evidentiary procedures, which I call epistemic partiality. I suggest that this epistemic defect brings salient reasons to challenge rape laws based on ideals of consent. I hope to show that a radical realist approach may bring reasons to challenge rape laws and flaws in evidentiary systems without the need to centrally agree with or rely on feminist commitments and political goals. This type of criticism may effectively bypass certain limitations of feminist theory and potentially add to discussions focused on power distortions within legal systems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41933,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v9i3.776\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v9i3.776","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: 0

摘要

女权主义法律理论对强奸法和性同意的概念提出了质疑,以更好地反映幸存者的经历,并解决法律框架中使妇女长期处于从属地位的权力扭曲问题。在本文中,我探讨了对基于同意的强奸法和法律体系中的偏见的另一种批评形式。我认为,在强奸案中用于选择和权衡证据的理由在认识上是可疑的,因为它们的认识来源不可靠。我的论点建立在政治理论中激进现实主义社会分析的基础上,旨在揭示强奸证据程序中的认知缺陷,我称之为认知偏见。我认为,这种认识上的缺陷为挑战基于同意理想的强奸法提供了显著的理由。我希望表明,激进的现实主义方法可能会带来挑战强奸法和证据系统缺陷的理由,而不需要集中同意或依赖女权主义的承诺和政治目标。这种类型的批评可能有效地绕过女权主义理论的某些局限性,并可能增加对法律体系中权力扭曲的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sexual Consent and Epistemic Partiality in Rape Fact-Finding
Feminist legal theory has contested rape laws and notions of sexual consent to better reflect the experiences of survivors and address power distortions in legal frameworks that perpetuate women’s subordination. In this paper, I explore an alternative form of criticism to consent-based rape laws and biases within legal systems. I argue that the justifications that are used to select and weigh evidence in rape cases are epistemically suspect because of the unreliability of their epistemic sources. My argument, building on radical realist social analysis in political theory, aims to unveil an epistemic defect in rape evidentiary procedures, which I call epistemic partiality. I suggest that this epistemic defect brings salient reasons to challenge rape laws based on ideals of consent. I hope to show that a radical realist approach may bring reasons to challenge rape laws and flaws in evidentiary systems without the need to centrally agree with or rely on feminist commitments and political goals. This type of criticism may effectively bypass certain limitations of feminist theory and potentially add to discussions focused on power distortions within legal systems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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