La prueba predictiva en los procesos penales
¿Por qué el derecho penal debe tratar a las personas como si tuvieran libre albedrío impredecible?
Resumen
En los procesos penales, a efectos de la determinación de si un individuo ejecutó una acción culpable, la prueba predictiva es usualmente ignorada. Por ejemplo, la elevada tasa de delitos que involucran armas de fuego ilegales en cierto vecindario no es usada en sustento de una condena en contra de una persona que allí reside por un delito que involucra un arma de fuego ilegal. Este artículo procura explicar y justificar la hostilidad del derecho penal hacia la prueba predictiva, sugiriendo que el derecho penal, en lo concerniente a la determinación de los hechos, se adhiere implícitamente a la visión según la cual la conducta culpable presupone un libre arbitrio necesariamente impredecible. Se argumenta luego que el derecho penal debe tratar a las personas sobre la base de la asunción de que ellas poseen libre albedrío impredecible, incluso en caso de que esta asunción carezca de fundamento o resulte falsa. El argumento procede mostrando cómo el uso de pruebas predictivas socava la efectividad del reproche. Se muestra también que esta justificación tiene una ventaja considerable frente a la justificación popular basada en los incentivos.
Palabras clave
prueba estadística, relevancia, prueba, reproche, puenteoCitas
Adler, M. D. (2005). Against «Individual Risk»: A Sympathetic Critique of Risk Assessment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153, 1121-1250, 1247.
Alexander, L., Ferzan, K. K. y Morse, S. (2009). Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law. Cambridge University Press.
Arntzenius, F. (1992). The Common Cause Principle. PSA. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 227-237.
Arpaly, N. (2006). Merit, Meaning, and Human Bondage: An Essay on Free Will. Princeton University Press.
Bergson, H. (1910). Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness (trad. Frank Lubecki Pogson). Kessinger Publishing Company.
Bernáth, L. y Tőzsér, J. (2020). Rolling Back the Rollback Argument. Teorema, 39(2), 43-62.
Björnsson, G. (2014). Incompatibilism and «Bypassed» Agency. En A. R. Mele (Ed.), Surrounding Free Will. Oxford University Press.
Björnsson, G. y Pereboom, D. (2014). Free Will Skepticism and Bypassing. En W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral Psychology (Vol. 4). MIT Press.
Brook, J. (1984). The Use of Statistical Evidence of Identification in Civil Litigation: Well-Worn Hypotheticals,
Real Cases, and Controversy. St Louis University Law Journal, 29, 293-352.
Buchak, L. (2013). Free Acts and Chance: Why the Rollback Argument Fails. Philosphical Quarterly, 63, 20-28.
Clarke, R. (2003). Libertarian Accounts of Free Will. Oxford University Press.
Clarke, R. (2004). Reflections on an Argument from Luck. Philosophical Topics, 32, 47-64.
Cohen, L. J. (1977). The Probable and the Provable. Oxford University Press.
Cowley, M. y Colyer, J. (2010). Asymmetries in Prior Conviction Reasoning: Truth Suppression Effects in Child Protection Contexts. Psychology, Crime & Law, 16, 211-231.
Dahlman, C. (2020). Naked Statistical Evidence and Incentives for Lawful Conduct. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 24, 162-179.
Dahlman, C. y Pundik, A. (2021). The Problem of Naked Statistical Evidence. En C. Dahlman, A. Stein y G. Tuzet (Eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford University Press.
Dauer, E. A. (2006). Strong Reciprocity and Accountability: Behavioural Analysis of Patients Legal Responses to Medical Injury. International Journal of Law in Context, 22, 257-276.
Davidson, D. (1963). Actions, Reasons, and Causes. Journal of Philosophy, 60, 685-700.
DeWees, D., Duff, D. y Trebilcock, M. (1996). Exploring the Domain of Accident Law: Taking the Facts Seriously. Oxford University Press.
Enoch, D., Spectre, L. y Fisher, T. (2012). Statistical Evidence, Sensitivity and the Legal Value of
Knowledge. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 40, 197-224.
Fischer, J. y Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Cambridge
University Press.
Fraassen, B. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford University Press.
Feltz, A. y Cova, F. (2014). Moral Responsibility and Free Will: A MetaAnalysis. Consciousness and
Cognition, 30, 234-246.
Genschow, O., Rigoni, D. y Brass, M. (2017). Belief in Free Will and Correspondence Bias. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 114.
Ginet, C. (1989). Reasons Explanation of Action: An Incompatibilist Account. Philosophical Perspectives,
, 17-46.
Hall, J. (1960). General Principles of Criminal Law (2ª ed.). Bobbs-Merrill.
Hart, H. L. A. (2008). Punishment and Responsibility (2ª ed.). Oxford University Press.
Hart, H. L. A. y Honoré, T. (1985). Causation in the Law (2ª ed.). Clarendon Press.
Husak, D. N. (1989). Motive and Criminal Liability. Criminal Justice Ethics, 8.
Jakobs, G. (1992). Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil. Die Grundlagen und die Zurechnungslehre. De Gruyter.
Kahneman, D. y Tversky, A. (1980). Causal Schemas in Judgment under Uncertainty. En M. Fishbein
(Ed.), Progress in Social Psychology. Erlbaum.
Kane, R. (1996). The Significance of Free Will. Oxford University Press.
Kane, R. (1999). Responsibility, Luck, and Chance: Reflections on Free Will and Indeterminism. Journal
of Philosophy, 96, 217-240.
Knobe, J. y Nichols, S. (2017) Experimental Philosophy. En Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Consultado el 27/9/2023. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/experimental-
philosophy/
Koehler, J. J. (2002). When Do Courts Think Base Rate Statistics Are Relevant? Jurimetrics Journal,
, 373-402.
Laurene, K. R., Rakos, R. F., Tisak, M. S., Robichaud, A. L. y Horvath, M. (2011). Perception of Free
Will: The Perspective of Incarcerated Adolescent and Adult Offenders. Review of Philosophy and
Psychology, 2, 723-740.
Leonard, D. P. (2001). Character and Motive in Evidence Law. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 34,
-536.
Levy, N. (2011). Hard Luck. Oxford University Press.
Lewis, R., McNabb, R., Robinson, H. y Wass, V. (2002). Court Awards of Damages for Loss of Future
Earnings: An Empirical Study and an Alternative Method of Calculation. Journal of Law and
Society, 29.
Lipton, P. (1990). Contrastive Explanation. En D. Knowles (Ed.), Explanation and its Limits. Royal
Institute of Philosophy.
Lockie, R. (2018). Free Will and Epistemology: A Defence of the Transcendental Argument for Freedom. Bloomsbury.
Loewer, B. (1996). Freedom from Physics: Quantum Mechanics and Free Will. Philosophical Topics, 24, 91-112.
Lombard, L. B. (1990). Causes, Enablers and the Counterfactual Analysis. Philosophical Studies, 59, 195-211.
McCandless, J. (1997). Prior Bad Acts and Two Bad Rules: The Fundamental Unfairness of Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 414. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 5, 689-715.
McKenna, M. (2012). Conversation and Responsibility. Oxford University Press.
Moore, M. (1985). Causation and the Excuses. California Law Review, 73, 1091-1149.
Murray, D. y Nahmias, E. (2014). Explaining Away Incompatibilist Intuitions. Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research, 88, 434-467.
Nahmias, E., Morris, S. G., Nadelhoffer, T. y Turner, J. (2006). Is Incompatibilism Intuitive? Philosophy
and Phenomenological Research, 73, 28-53.
Nahmias, E., Shepard, J. y Reuter, S. (2014). Its OK if «My Brain Made Me Do It»: People’s Intuitions about Free Will and Neuroscientific Prediction. Cognition, 133, 502-516.
Nesson, C. (1979). Reasonable Doubt and Permissive Inference: The Value of Complexity. Harvard Law Review, 92, 1187-1225.
Nichols, S. y Knobe, J. (2007). Moral Responsibility and Determinism: The Cognitive Science of Folk
Intuitions. Noûs, 41, 663-635.
O’Connor, T. (2000). Persons and Causes: The Metaphysics of Free Will. Oxford University Press.
O’Connor, T. (2009). Agent-Causal Power. En T. Handfield (Ed.), Dispositions and Causes. Oxford University Press.
O’Connor, T. (2016). Probability and Freedom: A Reply to Vicens. Res Philosophica, 93, 289-294.
Perry, S. (1995). Risk, Harm, and Responsibility. En D. G. Owen (Ed.), Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law. Oxford University Press.
Perry, R. (2006). The Role of Retributive Justice in the Common Law of Torts: A Descriptive Theory. Tennessee Law Review, 73, 177-236.
Picinali, F. (2016). Generalisations, Causal Relationships and Moral Responsibility. International Journal
of Evidence and Proof, 20, 121-147.
Posner, R. (1999). An Economic Approach to the Law of Evidence. Stanford Law Review, 51, 1477-1546.
Pundik, A. (2006). Epistemology and the Law of Evidence: Four Doubts about Alex Steins Foundations of Evidence Law. Civil Justice Quarterly, 25, 504-528.
Pundik, A. (2007). Can One Deny Both Causation by Omission and Causal Pluralism? The Case of Legal Causation. En F. Russo y J. Williamson (Ed.), Causality and Probability in the Sciences. College Publications.
Pundik, A. (2008a). Statistical Evidence and Individual Litigants: A Reconsideration of Wassermans Argument from Autonomy. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 12, 303-324.
Pundik, A. (2008b). What is Wrong with Statistical Evidence? The Attempts to Establish an Epistemic Deficiency. Civil Justice Quarterly, 27, 461-493.
Pundik, A. (2011). The Epistemology of Statistical Evidence. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 15, 117-143.
Pundik, A. (2017). Freedom and Generalisation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 37, 189-216.
Pundik, A. (2020). Predictive Evidence and Unpredictable Freedom. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 40, 238-264.
Pundik, A. (2021). Rethinking the Use of Statistical Evidence to Prove Causation in Criminal Cases: A Tale of (Im)Probability and Free Will. Law & Philosophy, 40, 97-128.
Pundik, A. (2022). Should Murder Be More Difficult to Prove than Theft? Beccaria and Differential Standards of Proof. En A. du Bois-Pedain y S. Eldar (Ed.), Re-reading Beccaria: On the Contemporary Significance of a Penal Classic. Bloomsbury.
Redmayne, M. (2003). Myths, Relationships and Coincidences: The New Problems of Sexual History.
International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 7, 75-101.
Redmayne, M. (2008). Exploring the Proof Paradoxes. Legal Theory, 14, 281-309.
Redmayne, M. (2015). Character in the Criminal Trial. Oxford University Press.
Reichenbach, H. (1991). The Direction of Time (2ª ed.). University of California Press.
Roberts, P. y Zuckerman, A. A. S. (2010). Criminal Evidence (2ª ed., 586). Oxford University Press.
Rose, D. y Nichols, S. (2013). The Lesson of Bypassing. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4, 599-619.
Roxin, C. (1992). Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil. Band 1: Grundlagen Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre. C. H. Beck 799.
Russell, P. (2013). Compatibilist-Fatalism. En P. Russell y O. Deery (Eds.), The Philosophy of Free Will: Essential Readings from the Contemporary Debates. Oxford University Press.
Sachs, T. (1950). Criminal Law: Humanitarian Motive as a Defense to Homicide—State v. Sander (N.H. 1950). Michigan Law Review, 48, 1199-1201.
Sanchirico, C. (2001). Character Evidence and the Object of Trial. Columbia Law Review, 101(6), 1227-1311.
Sancinetti, M. (1991). Casos de Derecho penal. Hammurabi.
Sarkissian, H., Chatterjee, A., de Brigard, F., Knobe, J., Nichols, S. y Sirker, S. (2010). Is Belief in Free Will a Cultural Universal? Mind & Language, 25, 346-358.
Scanlon, T. M. (1988). The Significance of Choice. En S. McMurrin (Ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values (Vol. 8). University of Utah Press.
Schoeman, F. (1987). Statistical vs. Direct Evidence. Noûs, 21, 179-198.
Schwartz, G. T. (1997). Mixed Theories of Tort Law: Affirming Both Deterrence and Corrective Justice. Texas Law Review, 75, 1801-1834.
Segev, R. (2020). Moral Innocence and the Criminal Law: Non-Mala Actions and Non-Culpable Agents. Cambridge Law Journal, 79, 549-577.
Segev, R. (2023). Actions, Agents, and Consequences. Criminal Justice Ethics, 42, 99-132.
Sela, G. (2017). Torts as Self-Defense [Tesis Doctoral]. Universidad de Oxford.
Shaviro, D. (1989). Statistical-Probability Evidence and the Appearance of Justice. Harvard Law Review, 103, 530-554.
Sheft, M. (1995). Federal Rule of Evidence 413: A Dangerous New Frontier. American Criminal Law Review, 33, 57-87.
Shoemaker, D. (2013). Qualities of Will. Social Philosophy and Policy, 30, 95-120.
Smilansky, S. (2000). Free Will and Illusion. Oxford University Press.
Thayer, J. B. (1898). A Preliminary Treatise on Evidnece at the Common Law. Little, Brown & Co.
Thomson, J. J. (1986). Liability and Individualized Evidence. Law & Contemporary Problems, 49, 199-219.
Twining, W. (1985). Theories of Evidence: Bentham & Wigmore. Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Uviller, R. (1982). Evidence of Character to Prove Conduct: Illusion, Illogic, and Injustice in the Courtroom. Penn Law Review, 130, 845-891.
Van Inwagen, P. (2000). Free Will Remains a Mystery. Philosophical Perspectives, 14, 1-19.
Vicens, L. (2016). Objective Probabilities of Free Choice. Res Philosophica, 93, 125-135.
Vigen, T. (s. f.). Spurious Correlations. Tylervigen.com. https://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Vohs, K. D. y Schooler, J. W. (2008). The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating. Psychological Science, 19, 49-55.
Wallace, R. J. (1994). Freedom and the Moral Sentiments. Harvard University Press.
Wisniewski, D., Deutschländer, R. y Haynes J. D. (2019). Free Will Beliefs Are Better Predicted by Dualism than Determinism Beliefs across Different Cultures. PLOS ONE, 14(9).
Zhao, X., Liu, L., Zhang, X., Shi J. y Huang Z. (2014). The Effect of Belief in Free Will on Prejudice. PLOS ONE, 9(3).
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i6.22895Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2023 Amit Pundik
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.