Basis of the Legal Rulings and Attribution as Epistemic Nature of the Statements of Witnesses in Procedural Criminal Matter

Abstract

La presente investigación explora un conjunto de criterios que son considerados por los jueces para atribuir calidad epistémica a las declaraciones de testigos. El análisis de entrevistas aplicadas a tres jueces, arroja diferencias entre los tipos de verdad que aquéllos esperan construir en sus sentencias, como también, diversidad en los criterios utilizados para atribuir méritos epistémicos a la prueba. Esta falta de consenso entre los jueces impactaría en el sistema de adjudicación de derechos.The current study explores the set of criteria that judges take into account to discern the epistemic quality of statements provided by witnesses. A content analysis of data produced through interviews with three judges, reveals differences in terms of the types of truth they expect to construct in their sentences as well as in the criteria considered to attribute epistemic merits to these statements. The lack of agreement among judges may have an impact on the system for adjudicating rights