Epistemic Injustice in the Criminal Trial
Jasmine Gonzales Rose, Rachel Herdy, Tareeq Jalloh and Abenaa Owusu-Bempah have each written a paper commenting on my essay ‘Evidential Reasoning, Testimonial Injustice and the Fairness of the Criminal Trial’, which appeared in Quaestio Facti in 2024. In this reply I engage with their insightful wo...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Marcial Pons
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Quaestio Facti |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://revistes.udg.edu/quaestio-facti/article/view/23098 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832542706085134336 |
|---|---|
| author | Federico Picinali |
| author_facet | Federico Picinali |
| author_sort | Federico Picinali |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
Jasmine Gonzales Rose, Rachel Herdy, Tareeq Jalloh and Abenaa Owusu-Bempah have each written a paper commenting on my essay ‘Evidential Reasoning, Testimonial Injustice and the Fairness of the Criminal Trial’, which appeared in Quaestio Facti in 2024. In this reply I engage with their insightful works. I discuss the advantages of framing in terms of ‘contributory injustice’ the scenarios analysed in my original essay. I briefly study the conditions for the existence of a correlation between credibility excess and credibility deficit. And I provide the sketch of a theory of trial fairness, which I am currently developing elsewhere.
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-2849f01f2efa4f6bb9012c5cbbc1fec1 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2660-4515 2604-6202 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | Marcial Pons |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Quaestio Facti |
| spelling | doaj-art-2849f01f2efa4f6bb9012c5cbbc1fec12025-02-03T17:27:29ZengMarcial PonsQuaestio Facti2660-45152604-62022025-01-018Epistemic Injustice in the Criminal TrialFederico Picinali0London School of Economics and Political Science, Law School Jasmine Gonzales Rose, Rachel Herdy, Tareeq Jalloh and Abenaa Owusu-Bempah have each written a paper commenting on my essay ‘Evidential Reasoning, Testimonial Injustice and the Fairness of the Criminal Trial’, which appeared in Quaestio Facti in 2024. In this reply I engage with their insightful works. I discuss the advantages of framing in terms of ‘contributory injustice’ the scenarios analysed in my original essay. I briefly study the conditions for the existence of a correlation between credibility excess and credibility deficit. And I provide the sketch of a theory of trial fairness, which I am currently developing elsewhere. https://revistes.udg.edu/quaestio-facti/article/view/23098Probative valueEvidential reasoningtestimonial injusticefairness |
| spellingShingle | Federico Picinali Epistemic Injustice in the Criminal Trial Quaestio Facti Probative value Evidential reasoning testimonial injustice fairness |
| title | Epistemic Injustice in the Criminal Trial |
| title_full | Epistemic Injustice in the Criminal Trial |
| title_fullStr | Epistemic Injustice in the Criminal Trial |
| title_full_unstemmed | Epistemic Injustice in the Criminal Trial |
| title_short | Epistemic Injustice in the Criminal Trial |
| title_sort | epistemic injustice in the criminal trial |
| topic | Probative value Evidential reasoning testimonial injustice fairness |
| url | https://revistes.udg.edu/quaestio-facti/article/view/23098 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT federicopicinali epistemicinjusticeinthecriminaltrial |