The expert evidence in the Colombian criminal proceeding from the social dimension of epistemology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.esde.v72n160a03Keywords:
expert evidence, epistemology, lay judge, party expert, adversarial system, rational assessmentAbstract
Departing from an understanding of Law as a social construction, as well as a collaborative endeavor in which different individuals produce knowledge and make decisions based, among other elements, on their commons sense of science, this article explores the social dimension of epistemology. From this perspective, and grounded on classic theorists such as Haack, the paper examines different aspects of the “expert evidence”, including the cientificity, as well as the lay judge’s epistemic competence to assess expert’s knowledge. In the same manner, this report also explores the expert evidence as an assistant to the judge, and the consequences thereof for legal rules such as the prohibition of the judge’s private knowledge and the use of human knowledgegeneralizations. Finally, drawing on non-classical authors such as Shapin or Kitcher, and based on social practices, the paper calls into question the adversarialism being transplanted in Colombia, and the level of inequality generated for the defense.
Downloads
References
Coady, C. (1992). Testimony, a philosofhical study. New York: Oxford University Press.
Defensoría del Pueblo. (2015). Vigésimo Segundo Informe del Defensor del Pueblo de Colombia al Congreso de la República. Bogotá. Recuperado de: www.imprenta.gov.co
Devis, H. (1995). Teoría general de la prueba judicial (5ª ed., Vol. I). Bogotá: ABC. Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial assessment of expert evidence.Cambrige: Cambrige University.
Federal Rules Evidence. (2015). (F. E. Review, Ed.). Recuperado el 25 de 03 de 2015, de http://federalevidence.com/downloads/rules.of.evidence.pdf
Ferrajoli, L. (1995). Derecho y razón: teoría del garantismo penal. (P. A. otros, Trad.) Madrid: Trotta.
Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2007). La valoración racional de la prueba. Madrid: Marcial Pons.
Fiscalía General de la Nación. (2015). Ejecución Presupuestal Consolidada al 31 de Diciembre De 2014. Bogotá. Recuperado de www.imprenta.gov.co http://www.fiscalia.gov.co/colombia/wp-content/uploads/Copia-de-eje-cuarto-trmestre-diciembrede-20141.pdf
Gascón Abellán, M. (1999). Los hechos en el derecho, bases argumentales de la prueba. Madrid: Marcial Pons.
Grupo de Derecho de Interés Público-Universidad de los Andes. (2012). Informe Relativo a las personas privadas de la libertad en Colombia (años 1991 a 2011). Informe a la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá. Recuperado el 25 de 08 de 2015, de http://gdip.uniandes.edu.co/index.
php?modo=resultados&id=1
Haack, S. (2005). Trial and Error: The Supreme Court’s Philosophy of Science, Forthcoming; The Coronado Conference: Scientific Evidence and Public Policy. Available at SSRN:. American Journal of Public Health, Supplement 1, 95(S1). Recuperado el 16 de Diciembre de 2014, de http://ssrn.com/abstract=695341
Haack, S. (2007). Defending Science -wthin reason, between scientism an cynicism. New York: Prometeus books.
Haack, S. (2009). Evidence and inquiry, a pragmatis reconstruction of epistemology (2a, expanded ed.). New York: Prometheus Books.
Haack, S. (2014). Evidece Matters, Science, Proof, and Truth in the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kaye, D.; Bernstein, D., & Mnookin, J. (2011). The new Wigmore: a treatise on evidence: expert evidence (2 ed.). Austin: Aspen Publishers.
Kitcher, P. (1995). The advancement of science . New York: Oxford University Press.
Lackey, J. (2006). It takes tuo to tango: beyond reductionism and non-reductionism in the epistemology of testimony. En L. A. Sosa, The Epistemology of Testimony (pp. 160-189). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lopez-Muñiz Coñi, M. (2008). La pericial, guía práctica y jurisprudencial (3a ed.). Madrid: Colex.
Machado Schiaffino, C. (1995). Pericias. Buenos Aires: Ediciones La Rocca.
Pérez Gil, J. (2010). El conocimiento científico en el proceso civil: ciencia y tecnología en tela de juicio.Valencia: Tirant lo blanch.
Shapin, S. (1995). A social history of truth . Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Vásquez, C. (24 de octubre de 2014). La prueba pericial. Entre la deferencia y la educación. Tesis doctoral, Universitat de Girona, Dret Privado. Recuperado el 24 de marzo de 2015, de Universitat de Girona: http://www.udg.edu/Default.aspx?tabid=4764
Weber, M. (1964). Teoría de las categorías sociológicas. EnEconomía y sociedad: esbozo de sociología comprensiva. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Wittgenstein, L. (1998). Sobre la certeza. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Estudios de Derecho is governed by the following regulation: Political Constitution of Colombia, article 61; Law 23 of 1982, articles 1 and 2; Law 44 of 1993, chapter II, article 6 and chapter IV, article 51; Law 599 of 2000 through which the Penal Code is issued, articles 270, 271 and 272. In addition, the journal is governed by the guidelines of the National Copyright Directorate and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for Colombia. Finally, it abides by Rectoral Resolution 21231 of 5 August, 2005, through which the Statute on Intellectual Property is issued.
Authors who publish in Estudios de Derecho continue to retain their rights, however, they should bear in mind that the contents of the journal are under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike license. In this sense, The material created may be distributed, copied and exhibited by third parties if they credit it. No commercial benefit can be obtained.
