Manufactured innocence? Not so fast!
A possible bias in Laudan's legal epistemology
Downloads
Abstract
After providing the reader with the context of the metaphor appearing in the article´s title (section 1), and linking it with the general and specific diagnoses that Laudan offers regarding the American accusatory system and others relevantly similar (sections 2 and 3), I put forward some elements in support of the thesis that a confirmation bias underlies the author´s legal epistemology project; a bias leading him to overstate the frequency and costs of false negatives (sections 4 to 7). I go on to identify the possible origin of the abovementioned bias (section 8), and to conclude I sketch a) an alternative theory of what justifies the infliction of legal punishment (which is centered around the notion that a moral communication is established between the State and those convicted of a crime), and b) a legal epistemology compatible with such a theory (section 9).
Keywords
sistemas acusatorios, epistemología jurídica, teorías de la justificación del castigo, justicia negociada, investigación del delitoDownloads
References
Aguilera, E., 2020: “Una propuesta de aplicación de la epistemología jurídica en la investigación del delito”, en Ferrer, J., y Vázquez, C., (Coords.), Del derecho al razonamiento probatorio, Marcial Pons, p. 17-44.
Aguilera, E. (2025). Epistemología jurídica: Cuestiones, debates y propuestas actuales. Zela.
Ask, K., Rebelius, A., y Granhag, P., 2008: “The elasticity of criminal evidence: A moderator of investigator bias”, Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, No. 22, p. 1245-1259.
Azaola, E. y Ruíz, M., 2009: Investigadores de papel: Poder y derechos humanos entre la policía judicial de la Ciudad de México, Fontamara.
Cassell, P., 2018: “Tradeoffs Between Wrongful Convictions and Wrongful Acquittals: Understanding and Avoiding the Risks”, Seton Hall Law Review, Vol. 48, 4, 1435-1492.
Cook, K., 2022: Shattered justice: Crime victims’ experiences with wrongful convictions and exonerations, Rutgers University Press.
Dei Vecchi, D. (2020a). Los confines pragmáticos del razonamiento probatorio. Zela.
Dei Vecchi, D. (2020b). Estándares de suficiencia probatoria, moralidad política y costos de error: el núcleo inconsistente de la epistemología jurídica de Larry Laudan. Doxa, Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, 43, pp. 397-426. https://doi.org/10.14198/DOXA2020.43.15
Duff, R. A. (1986). Trials and punishments. Cambridge University Press.
Duff, R. A. (1996). Penal communications: Recent work on the philosophy of punishment. Crime and Justice, A review of research, 20, pp. 1-96. https://doi.org/10.1086/449241
Duff, R. A. (2001). Punishment, communication, and community. Oxford University Press.
Eerland, A., y Rassin, E. (2010). Biased evaluation of incriminating and exonerating (non)evidence. Journal of Psychology, Crime, and Law, p. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2010.493889
Feeney, F., Dill, F., y Weir, A. (1983). Arrests without conviction. How often they occur and why. National Institute of Justice.
Findley, K. (2018). Reducing Error in the Criminal Justice System. Seton Hall Law Review, 48(4),p. 1265-1318.
Free, M. y Ruesink, M. (2016). Wrongful convictions of women: When innocence isn´t enough. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Gardiner, G. (2017). In Defence of Reasonable Doubt. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 34(2), pp. 221-
241. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12173
Garret, B. (2021). Autopsy of a crime lab: Exposing the flaws in forensics. University of California Press.
Givelber, D. y Farrell, A. (2012). Not guilty: Are the acquitted innocent? NYU Press.
Gross, S. (Ed.) (2022). Race and wrongful convictions in the Unites States. National Registry of Exonerations.
Hampton, J. (1992). An expressive theory of retribution. En W. Creig (ed.), Retributivism and its critics (p. 1-21). V. Steiner Verlag.
Harris, D. (2012). Failed evidence: Why law enforcement resists science. New York University Press.
Kalven, H. y Zeisel, H. (1966). The American Jury. Little Brown.
Koppi, R. (2018). Comment on Laudan. Seton Hall Law Review, 48(4), p. 1255-1263.
Laudan, L. (2006). Truth, Error, and the Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology. Cambridge University Press.
Laudan, L. (2013). Verdad, error y proceso penal: un ensayo sobre epistemología jurídica (traducción de Carmen Vázquez y Edgar Aguilera). Marcial Pons.
Laudan, L. (2016). The Law´s Flaws; Rethinking Trial and Errors? College Publications.
Laudan, L. y Saunders, H. (2009). Re-Thinking the Criminal Standard of Proof: Seeking Consensus about the Utilities of Trial Outcomes. International Commentary on Evidence, 7(2).
Lidén, M. (2018). Confirmation bias in criminal cases. [Tesis doctoral, Uppsala University]. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1237959/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Lidén, M. (2020). Confirmation Bias in Investigations of Core International Crimes: Risk Factors and Quality Control Techniques. En X. Agirre Aranburu, M. Bergsmo, S. De Smet y C. Stahn (eds.), Quality Control in Criminal Investigation (p. 461-528). Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher.
Lippke, R. (2011). The ethics of plea bargaining. Oxford University Press.
Lippke, R. (2016). Taming the presumption of innocence. Oxford University Press.
Lippke, R. (2024). Theorizing legal punishment. Routledge.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i10.23147Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Edgar Ramón Aguilera García
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.