论监狱中的“认知不公”与受害行为

J. Stippel, Paula Pérez, Marcelo Barrìa
{"title":"论监狱中的“认知不公”与受害行为","authors":"J. Stippel, Paula Pérez, Marcelo Barrìa","doi":"10.22197/rbdpp.v9i1.803","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article looks for reasons that explain the different results of criminal investigations conducted inside and outside prisons. We ask if and how the concept of epistemic injustice, as developed by Miranda Fricker, helps to understand those variations. The underlying hypothesis is that epistemic injustice is a symptom of a wider problem. The authors assume that the treatment of victims of violent crime inside prison has structural rather than interpersonal explanations. In a qualitative approach the study uses data from a series of semi-structured interviews with prisoners and prison officers (40 interviews in total). It explores the dynamics of the decision to report crime committed inside prisons and the role of different institutions involved in the investigation of these crimes from the perspective and experience of prisoners and prison officers. As result it is argued, that Fricker’s concept of epistemic injustice is not very helpful when it comes to understand epistemic injustice suffered by victims of violent crime inside prison. It can be better understood in the terms of epistemic oppression used by Dotson. Thus, it is not about assigning blame but how to change the underlying social relations and institutions that subordinate prisoners on epistemic grounds.","PeriodicalId":41933,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On “epistemic injustice” and victimization in prisons\",\"authors\":\"J. Stippel, Paula Pérez, Marcelo Barrìa\",\"doi\":\"10.22197/rbdpp.v9i1.803\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article looks for reasons that explain the different results of criminal investigations conducted inside and outside prisons. We ask if and how the concept of epistemic injustice, as developed by Miranda Fricker, helps to understand those variations. The underlying hypothesis is that epistemic injustice is a symptom of a wider problem. The authors assume that the treatment of victims of violent crime inside prison has structural rather than interpersonal explanations. In a qualitative approach the study uses data from a series of semi-structured interviews with prisoners and prison officers (40 interviews in total). It explores the dynamics of the decision to report crime committed inside prisons and the role of different institutions involved in the investigation of these crimes from the perspective and experience of prisoners and prison officers. As result it is argued, that Fricker’s concept of epistemic injustice is not very helpful when it comes to understand epistemic injustice suffered by victims of violent crime inside prison. It can be better understood in the terms of epistemic oppression used by Dotson. Thus, it is not about assigning blame but how to change the underlying social relations and institutions that subordinate prisoners on epistemic grounds.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41933,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-31\",\"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.v9i1.803\",\"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.v9i1.803","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

这篇文章寻找解释监狱内外刑事调查结果不同的原因。我们想知道,米兰达·弗里克提出的认识不公正的概念是否以及如何有助于理解这些变化。基本的假设是,认识上的不公正是一个更广泛问题的症状。作者认为,监狱内暴力犯罪受害者的待遇有结构性的解释,而不是人际关系的解释。在定性方法中,该研究使用了一系列对囚犯和狱警的半结构化访谈数据(共40次访谈)。它从囚犯和监狱官员的角度和经验探讨了报告监狱内犯罪的决定的动态,以及参与调查这些犯罪的不同机构的作用。因此,有人认为,弗里克的认识不公正概念在理解监狱内暴力犯罪受害者所遭受的认识不公时并没有太大帮助。多特森使用的认知压迫可以更好地理解这一点。因此,这不是指责,而是如何改变基于认识论的囚犯从属关系和制度。
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
On “epistemic injustice” and victimization in prisons
The article looks for reasons that explain the different results of criminal investigations conducted inside and outside prisons. We ask if and how the concept of epistemic injustice, as developed by Miranda Fricker, helps to understand those variations. The underlying hypothesis is that epistemic injustice is a symptom of a wider problem. The authors assume that the treatment of victims of violent crime inside prison has structural rather than interpersonal explanations. In a qualitative approach the study uses data from a series of semi-structured interviews with prisoners and prison officers (40 interviews in total). It explores the dynamics of the decision to report crime committed inside prisons and the role of different institutions involved in the investigation of these crimes from the perspective and experience of prisoners and prison officers. As result it is argued, that Fricker’s concept of epistemic injustice is not very helpful when it comes to understand epistemic injustice suffered by victims of violent crime inside prison. It can be better understood in the terms of epistemic oppression used by Dotson. Thus, it is not about assigning blame but how to change the underlying social relations and institutions that subordinate prisoners on epistemic grounds.
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