HTML (Español (España))
pdf (Español (España))
FLIP
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Abstract
Within the literature on evidentiary reasoning, there is a relevant debate regarding trial by jury. For those who support the rational conception of evidence, the conscience-based trial by jury implies adopting a subjectivist conception of evidence and a psychologistic view of the justification behind judicial decisions.
Therefore, if a legal system subscribes to the rationalist conception of evidence, it cannot adopt trial by jury, and those systems that have done so should abolish it. However, within this literature, little has been discussed about the alleged incompatibility between trial by jury and the rational conception of evidence. This position appears to be the hegemonic view within the field of evidentiary reasoning. Contrary to this thesis, this article critically analyzes the position that clams there is an incompatibility between trial by jury and the rational conception of evidence. To carry out this analysis, the article employs certain analytical frameworks from linguistic anthropology that helps understand and explain how semiotic and
ideological processes operate within the field of evidentiary reasoning. In order to conduct the proposed analysis, this article focuses on two relevant texts on evidentiary reasoning that address this issue. It concludes by arguing that characterizing the model of conceptions of evidence as one that is devoid of perspective, objective, neutral, and closed renders invisible the comparative and normative projects that are currently advancing.
References
Accatino, Daniela. “Teoría de la prueba: ¿somos todos ‘racionalistas’ ahora?”. Revus. Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law / Revija za ustavno teorijo in filozofijo prava, núm. 39 (2019). https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.5559.
Ángel Mena, Jhony. “Una decisión judicial ajustada a la tradición racionalista de la prueba”. Revista Derecho, debates & personas, blog agosto 24 de 2020. https://www.revistaderecho.com.co/2020/08/24/una-decision-judicial-ajustada-a-la-tradicion-racionalista-de-la-prueba/.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Classification Struggles: General Sociology, Volume 1. Polity Press, 2018.
Carranza, Isolda E. “Los índices metapragmáticos, la argumentación y el caso de la participación ciudadana en juicios penales”. Spanish in Context 10, núm. 3 (2013): 350-70. https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.10.3.02car.
Chávez, Raquel Limay. “Las máximas de experiencia en la valoración racional de la prueba: Uso adecuado e inadecuado desde la perspectiva de género”. IUS ET VERITAS, núm. 63 (2021): 208-23. https://doi.org/10.18800/iusetveritas.202102.011.
Cohen, Mathilde. “The French Case for Requiring Juries to Give Reasons: Safeguarding Defendants or Guarding the Judges?”. En Comparative Criminal Procedure, editado por Jacqueline Ross & Stephen Thaman, 422-50. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781007198.00023.
Coloma, Rodrigo, Jorge Larroucau Torres, & Andrés Páez. “Sobre el impacto judicial de la concepción racionalista de la prueba (On the Judicial Impact of the Rationalist Conception of Evidence)”, SSRN Electronic Journal, 24 de julio de 2024. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4872137.
Ferrer Beltrán, Jordi. “Sobre el deber de motivación de las decisiones probatorias y el juicio por jurados. La sentencia V.R.P., V.P.C. y otros vs. Nicaragua de la Corte IDH”, Quaestio facti. Revista internacional sobre razonamiento probatorio, núm. 1 (2020). https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i0.22381.
Gal, Susan. “Scale-Making: Comparison and Perspective as Ideological Projects”. En Scale: Discourse and Dimensions of Social Life, 91-111. California: University of California Press, 2016.
Gal, Susan, & Judith T. Irvine. Signs of Difference: Language and Ideology in Social Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Garzón, Luis Orlando Toro, Lucero Ocampo Henao, & Daniel Estiven Tobón Mejía. “El testigo experto: efectos de convicción para la decisión judicial en procesos de responsabilidad civil por error médico”. Novum Jus 17, núm. (2023): 157-87. https://doi.org/10.14718/NovumJus.2023.17.3.6.
Hans, Valerie P. “Jury Systems Around the World”. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 4, núm. 1 (2008): 275-97. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172319.
Hans, Valerie P, & Claire M Germain. “The French Jury at a Crossroads”. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., núm. 737 (2011): 33.
Hernández, David Modesto Guette & Juan Pablo Isaza Gutiérrez. “Los mínimos argumentales como criterios racionales para evaluar decisiones judiciales”. Novum Jus 17, núm. 3 (2023): 17-42. https://doi.org/10.14718/NovumJus.2023.17.3.1.
Infante, Jeisson Romero. “La prueba judicial: una aproximación realista”. Novum Jus 11, núm. 2 (2017): 53-80. https://doi.org/10.14718/NovumJus.2017.11.2.3.
Irvine, Judith T., &Susan Gal. “Language Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation”. En Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities, editado por Paul V. Kroskrity, 35-84. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 2000. “Judicial Systems of the Anglo-Saxons, The Chapter IV.” En History of Trial By Jury 1875: 45-77.
Lasser, Mitchel. Judicial Deliberations: A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Transparency and Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Martínez, Catalina Merino. “La reconstrucción racional del Juicio de Hecho: una exigencia de la tutela judicial efectiva”. Revista de la Facultad de Derecho de México 68, núm. 272 (2018): 571-96. https://doi.org/10.22201/fder.24488933e.2018.272-2.67580.
Mena Herrera, Jhony Ángel. “La incompatibilidad de la Institución de Jurado con el Diseño Procesal ajustado a la concepción racionalista de la prueba”, Notitia Criminis El Portal (blog), 1 de junio de 2023. https://notitiacriminis.mx/tribuna/nfirmas/4212/.
Merryman, John Henry, & Rogelio Peréz Perdomo. The Civil Law Tradition: An Introduction to the Legal Systems of Europe and Latin America. 4th ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2019.
Muñoz García, Miguel Ángel. El estándar probatorio penal y su motivación: una propuesta de interpretación a partir de la concepción racionalista de la prueba. Bogotá: Ibáñez, 2019.
Muñoz García, Miguel Ángel. “Prueba sin convicción: un libro revolucionario para un problema clásico”, Cesjul.org. https://cesjul.org/prueba-sin-conviccion/#_ftnref13.
Novoa, Marcela Paz Araya. “Género y verdad. Valoración racional de la prueba en los delitos de violencia patriarcal”. Revista de Estudios de la Justicia, núm. 32 (2020): 35-69. https://doi.org/10.5354/0718-4735.2020.56915.
Peirce, Charles S. (Charles Sanders), Charles Hartshorne, Arthur W. Burks, & Paul Weiss. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1960.
Ramírez, Daniel Felipe Páez, Héctor Antonio Domínguez Mosquera, & María Claudia Saavedra Calambás. “El relativismo jurídico. Toma de decisiones por el operador judicial: entre verdad y justicia”. Novum Jus 17, núm. 3 (2023): 133-56. https://doi.org/10.14718/NovumJus.2023.17.3.5.
Ricaurte, Catherine. Argumentación y teoría de la prueba en el mundo latino. Barcelona: J.M. Bosch Editor, 2024. http://www.dykinson.com/libros/argumentacion-y-teoria -de-la-prueba-en-el-mundo-latino/9788410044876/.
Rosa, Jonathan. “Racializing Language, Regimenting Latinas/Os: Chronotope, Social Tense, and American Raciolinguistic Futures”. Language & Communication 46 (2016):106-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.10.007.
Rosa, Jonathan, & Nelson Flores. “Unsettling Race and Language: Toward a Raciolinguistic Perspective”. Language in Society 46, núm. 5 (2017): 621-47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404517000562.
Salas, Fernando Luna, Cristian Arrieta Morales, & Ricardo Andrés Cano Andrade. “Prospectiva de las controversias probatorias asociadas al delito de feminicidio en Colombia”. Novum Jus 17, núm. 1 (2023): 157-86. https://doi.org/10.14718/NovumJus.2023.17.1.7.
Shapiro, Barbara. Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Probable Cause: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.
Shapiro, Barbara. “Changing Language, Unchanging Standard: From Satisfied Conscience to Moral Certainty and beyond Reasonable Doubt.” Cardozo J. Int’l & Comp., núm. 17 (2009): 261.
Shapiro, Barbara J. “To A Moral Certainty: Theories of Knowledge and Anglo-American Juries 1600-1850”. Hastings Law Journal, núm. 38 (1986):153.
Silverstein, Michael. “Indexical Order and the Dialectics of Sociolinguistic Life”. Language & Communication, Words and Beyond: Linguistic and Semiotic Studies of Sociocultural Order 23 núm. 3 (2003): 193-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2.
Smalls, Krystal A. “Race, SIGNS, and the Body: Towards a Theory of Racial Semiotics”. En The Oxford Handbook of Language and Race, editado por H. Samy Alim, Angela Reyes, & Paul V. Kroskrity, 232-60. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190845995.013.15.
Smalls, Krystal A. “Fat, Black, and Ugly: The Semiotic Production of Prodigious Femininities”. Transforming Anthropology 29, núm. 1 (2021): 12-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/traa.12208.
Thaman, Stephen. “Should Criminal Juries Give Reasons for Their Verdicts?: The Spanish Experience and the Implications of the European Court of Human Rights Decision in Taxquet v. Belgium”. Chicago-Kent Law Review 86, núm. 2 (2011): 613.
Thaman, Stephen. “Ensuring the Factual Reliability of Criminal Convictions: Reasoned Judgments or a Return to Formal Rules of Evidence?”. En Comparative Criminal Procedure, editado por Jacqueline Ross and Stephen Thaman, 75-114. (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781007198.00009.
Villanueva, Carlos Martin, & Natalina Stamile. “Perspectiva de género y juicios por jurados: los mecanismos de control de sesgos y estereotipos de género en el juicio por jurados”. Constituição, Economia e Desenvolvimento: Revista Eletrônica Da Academia Brasileira de Direito Constitucional 13, núm. 25 (2021): 259-90.
Whitman, James Q. The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial. New Heaven: Yale University Press, 2008.
Forsyth, William & James Appleton Morgan, History of Trial by Jury, James Appleton Morgan, coord. New York: Lawbook Exchange, 1994
