Celeridad o justicia: Dinámicas de coerción, credibilidad e injusticia epistémica en el procedimiento abreviado en México
Loading...
Publication date
Advisors
Department
Research group
Center
Abstract
El procedimiento o juicio abreviado enfrenta retos significativos tanto epistemológicos como procesales. Este artículo examina cómo su regulación en México puede generar dinámicas coercitivas y distorsiones epistémicas que comprometen la agencia y credibilidad de las personas imputadas. A través del concepto de “injusticia testimonial agencial”, desarrollado por Lackey, se analizan los efectos de entornos procesales que limitan la participación y autonomía epistémica de las personas acusadas. El análisis aborda problemas como la credibilidad desproporcionada otorgada a la aceptación de hechos y los efectos acumulativos de entornos coercitivos. También se identifican buenas prácticas internacionales en control judicial, revisión de pruebas y mecanismos de apelación, para proponer ajustes adaptados al contexto mexicano.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The plea-bargaining faces significant epistemological and procedural challenges. This article examines how its regulation in Mexico may generate coercive dynamics and epistemic distortions that compromise the agency and credibility of defendants. Through the concept of “agential testimonial injustice,” developed by Lackey, the article analyzes the effects of procedural environments that limit the participation and epistemic autonomy of defendants. The analysis addresses issues such as the disproportionate credibility granted to admissions of facts and the cumulative effects of coercive environments. It also identifies international best practices in judicial oversight, evidentiary review, and appellate mechanisms, to propose adjustments tailored to the Mexican context.
The plea-bargaining faces significant epistemological and procedural challenges. This article examines how its regulation in Mexico may generate coercive dynamics and epistemic distortions that compromise the agency and credibility of defendants. Through the concept of “agential testimonial injustice,” developed by Lackey, the article analyzes the effects of procedural environments that limit the participation and epistemic autonomy of defendants. The analysis addresses issues such as the disproportionate credibility granted to admissions of facts and the cumulative effects of coercive environments. It also identifies international best practices in judicial oversight, evidentiary review, and appellate mechanisms, to propose adjustments tailored to the Mexican context.







