Dos es más que uno, pero menos que tres: El voto disidente en decisiones judiciales sometidas al estándar de prueba de la "duda razonable"

Rodrigo Coloma Correa
2014 Política Criminal  
COLOMA, Rodrigo. "Dos es más que uno, pero menos que tres. El voto disidente en decisiones judiciales sometidas al estándar de prueba de la «duda razonable»". Palabras clave: Decisión judicial, Duda razonable, Estándar de prueba, Fundamentación de sentencias, Voto disidente. Abstract This paper analyzes the normative consequences of the minority vote arguing the existence of reasonable doubt in a case. The paper's argument dialogues with two academic opinions, claiming that in order to convict,
more » ... the standard of proof requires or should require unanimity on the proof of facts "beyond reasonable doubt". One of the premises of such line of reasoning -the primacy of reasonable doubt-has weaknesses and it leads us to the conclusion that a majority vote affirming the absence of reasonable doubt is enough to reach the criminal standard of proof. However, it should be considered that each judge member in a collegiate court occupies -prima facie-an equivalent position, from an epistemic point of view. Therefore, there are good reasons for improving deliberative and justification requirements, in the substantiation of a judicial decision, whenever a minority judge claims that there is reasonable doubt in a given case.
doi:10.4067/s0718-33992014000200004 fatcat:zlbhrv6zhfhxjmunbpeuqwdavi