Entre educação e deferência: aspectos locais dos sistemas de justiça e sua influência no controle judicial da ciência

Abstract

The adequate determination of the factual hypothesis of judicial syllogism is a condition for the justice of decisions. However, the task at hand imposes a series of challenges for even the most dedicated judge. This dissertation addresses the challenge that can be summarized by the question: how to critically evaluate the testimony of experts in a process taking into account that this testimony involves technical-scientific knowledge that is foreign to the judges? The dissertation develops this proposal in different steps. Firstly, the fallibility of the scientific enterprise and the risk of condemnation of innocent people are indicated as reasons that justify the concern with the critical evaluation of science. Second, based on the 1993 article by Ronald Allen and Joseph Miller, The Common Law Theory of Experts: Deference or Education?, it is argued that what is truly hidden in the debate about critical evaluation of expert testimony is the need to decide between a deferential and an educational model. Thirdly, the aforementioned models are presented, suggesting different formats for each of them. Finally, the dissertation emphasizes the relevance of paying attention to local aspects of each justice system to think about the education or deference debate, pointing out the existence of multiple responses regarding the judicial control of science.