欧陆(罗马-日耳曼)刑事诉讼观念对“认识不公正”现象的影响

Maria Rogacka-Rzewnicka
{"title":"欧陆(罗马-日耳曼)刑事诉讼观念对“认识不公正”现象的影响","authors":"Maria Rogacka-Rzewnicka","doi":"10.22197/rbdpp.v9i3.800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present article concentrates on the systemic and institutional environment characteristic of the sphere of criminal trial as being a source of reality called “epistemic injustice”. The subject of this analysis is criminal procedure applicable in continental Europe. In this attempt to transpose the concept of “epistemic injustice” coined by Miranda Ficker to criminal procedure, certain specific systemic and institutional solutions were accentuated, which may contribute to injustice in relation to different aspects of the procedure. Three important institutions regulating criminal procedure were taken into account: the concept of prosecuting crimes, procedural consensualism, and the crime victim. The conclusions are not based on hard arguments that would directly prove the phenomena described by M. Fricker. It was concluded that “epistemic injustice” is more a matter of the facts than the law, although – as it was attempted to show – particular legal solutions may in a specific manner contribute to the state designated by that term. The presented threats are comprised mainly in the reality termed in literature as “epistemic agential injustice”.","PeriodicalId":41933,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Impact of the Concept of Continental (Romano-Germanic) Criminal Procedure on the Phenomenon of “Epistemic Injustice”\",\"authors\":\"Maria Rogacka-Rzewnicka\",\"doi\":\"10.22197/rbdpp.v9i3.800\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The present article concentrates on the systemic and institutional environment characteristic of the sphere of criminal trial as being a source of reality called “epistemic injustice”. The subject of this analysis is criminal procedure applicable in continental Europe. In this attempt to transpose the concept of “epistemic injustice” coined by Miranda Ficker to criminal procedure, certain specific systemic and institutional solutions were accentuated, which may contribute to injustice in relation to different aspects of the procedure. Three important institutions regulating criminal procedure were taken into account: the concept of prosecuting crimes, procedural consensualism, and the crime victim. The conclusions are not based on hard arguments that would directly prove the phenomena described by M. Fricker. It was concluded that “epistemic injustice” is more a matter of the facts than the law, although – as it was attempted to show – particular legal solutions may in a specific manner contribute to the state designated by that term. The presented threats are comprised mainly in the reality termed in literature as “epistemic agential injustice”.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41933,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"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.v9i3.800\",\"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.v9i3.800","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

本文集中讨论刑事审判领域的制度和制度环境特征,作为一种被称为“认知不公正”的现实来源。本分析的主题是适用于欧洲大陆的刑事诉讼程序。在试图将米兰达·菲克(Miranda Ficker)创造的“认识上的不公正”概念转移到刑事程序的过程中,强调了某些具体的系统和机构解决办法,这可能会导致与程序的不同方面有关的不公正。会议考虑到规范刑事诉讼程序的三个重要机构:起诉犯罪的概念、程序共识和犯罪受害者。这些结论并不是建立在能够直接证明弗里克所描述的现象的确凿论据之上的。结论是,“认识上的不公正”与其说是法律问题,不如说是事实问题,尽管- -正如它试图表明的那样- -特定的法律解决办法可能以特定的方式促成该术语所指定的国家。所呈现的威胁主要包含在文学中称为“认知代理不公正”的现实中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Impact of the Concept of Continental (Romano-Germanic) Criminal Procedure on the Phenomenon of “Epistemic Injustice”
The present article concentrates on the systemic and institutional environment characteristic of the sphere of criminal trial as being a source of reality called “epistemic injustice”. The subject of this analysis is criminal procedure applicable in continental Europe. In this attempt to transpose the concept of “epistemic injustice” coined by Miranda Ficker to criminal procedure, certain specific systemic and institutional solutions were accentuated, which may contribute to injustice in relation to different aspects of the procedure. Three important institutions regulating criminal procedure were taken into account: the concept of prosecuting crimes, procedural consensualism, and the crime victim. The conclusions are not based on hard arguments that would directly prove the phenomena described by M. Fricker. It was concluded that “epistemic injustice” is more a matter of the facts than the law, although – as it was attempted to show – particular legal solutions may in a specific manner contribute to the state designated by that term. The presented threats are comprised mainly in the reality termed in literature as “epistemic agential injustice”.
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
期刊最新文献
Legalidade “versus” jurisdicionalidade na execução penal? Ônus financeiro da monitoração eletrônica em decisões do TRF-4 Deciding not to decide Intersecções entre o Eficientismo Processual Penal e o Neoliberalismo Desnaturalización del doble conforme y desbordamiento de carga procesal en el Perú a propósito de la Ley N° 31592, ley que modifica la condena del absuelto Balancing Self-Incrimination and Public Safety: A Comparative Analysis of Compelled Smartphone Unlocking in Brazilian and U.S. Legal Systems
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1