A raison d'être for the judicial process
An analysis from the Spanish procedural system
Descargas
Resumen
Several Spanish authors have conceptualised the judicial process as a forced and inevitable temporal evolution that must precede the resolution of the controversy and that depends on slowness —as the antithesis of immediacy—. According to this doctrine, this process aims to avoid an immediate judicial response. In this paper, I will examine why the judicial process has been defined in this way; the reasons why speed is not desirable in the judicial function. To this end, I draw on the findings of cognitive psychology and, more specifically, on a set of theories that support the existence of two ways of processing information —two ways of knowing, believing, thinking, reasoning, and acting—: one fast and one slow; these are the dual processing theories. As a result of this confrontation, I propose a rationale, a purpose, and a definition for the judicial process, which are based on the idea that the presence of a time interval is necessary for the right to judicial impartiality and the right of defence to —materially— exist.
Palabras clave
judicial process, right of defence, procedural guarantees, judicial impartiality, jurisdictional functionCitas
Andrés Ibáñez, P. (2009). Imparcialidad judicial e independencia judicial. En VV.AA., La imparcialidad judicial. CGPJ.
Baron, J. (2008). Thinking and Deciding. Cambridge University Press.
Beccaria, C. (2015). De los delitos y las penas. Carlos III University of Madrid.
Bennett, M. (2016). The implicit racial bias in sentencing: The next frontier. Yale Law Journal Forum, 126.
Calamandrei, P. (1953). La crisi della giustizia. En VV.AA., La crisi del diritto. CEDAM.
Calamandrei, P. (1966). Governo e magistratura. En M. Cappelletti, Opere giuridiche (Vol. V). Morano.
Calamandrei, P. (1986). Instituciones de derecho procesal civil. Europa-América.
Capdeferro, J. and Serra, E. (2015). Casos del Tribunal de Contrafaccions de Catalunya (1702-1713). Parlament de Catalunya.
Carnelutti, F. (1994). Cómo se hace un proceso. Temis.
Carnelutti, F. (1997). Instituciones del proceso civil. El foro.
Clore, G. and Jeffery, K. (1972). Emotional role playing, attitude change, and attraction toward a disabled person. Journal of personality and social psychology, 23.
Chen, D. and Loecher, M. (2019). Mood and the malleability of moral reasoning. Available at SSRN 2740485.
Dasgupta, N. and Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of experimental social psychology, 40(5), pp. 642-658.
Danziger, S., Levav, J. and Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, pp. 6889-6892.
Dewey, J. (1989). Cómo pensamos. Paidós.
Donald, B., Rachlinski, J. and Wistrich, A. (2020). Getting Explicit About Implicit Bias. Judicature, 104.
Dressel, J. and Farid, H. (2018). The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science advances, 4(1).
Duch, Ll. (2018). Vida cotidiana y velocidad. Herder.
Edmond, G. and Kristy, M. (2019). Just cognition: scientific research on bias and some implications for legal procedure and decision‐making. The modern law review, 82.
Eren, O. and Mocan, N. (2018). Emotional judges and unlucky juveniles. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10(3), pp. 171-205
Euback, V. (2019). Automating inequality: how high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. Picador.
Evans, J. (2010). Thinking twice. Two minds in one brain. Oxford University Press.
Evans, J. (2017). Thinking and reasoning. Oxford University Press.
Evans, J. (2020). Hypothetical Thinking: Dual Processes in Reasoning and Judgement. Routledge.
Evans, J. and Frankish, K. (2009). The duality of mind: An historical perspective. En J. Evans y K. Frankish, In two minds: dual processes and beyond. Oxford University Press.
Fariña, F., Arce, R. and Novo, M. (2002). Heurístico de anclaje en las decisiones judiciales. Psicothema, 14, pp. 39-46.
Fenech, M. (1960). Derecho procesal penal (V. I). Labor.
Fernández López, M. (2022). La conformación del conjunto de elementos de juicio III. Principios generales de la práctica de la prueba. En J. Ferrer Beltrán (coord.), Manual de Razonamiento Probatorio. Suprema Corte de la Nación.
Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2007). La valoración racional de la prueba. Marcial Pons.
Ferro, V. (1987). El Dret Públic Català. Les instituciones a Catalunya fins al Decret de Nova Planta. Eumo.
Forza, A. (1997). Il processo invisibile. Marsilio.
Forza, A., Menegon, G. and Rumiati, R. (2017). Il giudice emotivo. La decisione tra ragione ed emozione. Il Mulino.
Garnham, A. and Oakhill, J. (1996). Manual de psicologia del pensamiento. Paidós.
Gladwell, M. (2018). Inteligencia intuitiva. Debolsillo.
Guasp, J. (1968). Derecho procesal civil. Instituto Estudios Políticos.
Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. and Wistrich, A. (2000). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, pp. 777-830.
Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. and Wistrich, A. (2007). Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases. Cornell Law Review, 93, pp. 101-140.
Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. and Wistrich, A. (2009). The "Hidden Judiciary": An Empirical Examination of Executive Branch Justice. Duke Law Journal, pp. 1477-1530.
Guzmán Fluja, V.C. (2021) Proceso penal y justicia automatizada. Revista General de Derecho Procesal, 53, pp. 1-40.
Han, B. C. (2013). La Sociedad de la transparencia. Herder.
Han, B. C. (2020). La desaparición de los rituales. Herder.
Hogarth, R. (2002). Educar la intuición. Paidós.
Kahneman, D. (2013). Pensar rápido, pensar despacio. Debolsillo.
Kahneman, D. and Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. En T. Gilovich, D. Griffin and D. Kahneman (eds.). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D., Sibony, O. and Sustein, C. (2021). Ruido. Un fallo en el juicio humano. Debate.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky. (1982). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. En D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press.
Kang, J. (2021). What judges can do about implicit bias. Court Review, 57.
Kang, J. et al. (2011). Implicit bias in the courtroom. UCLa Law Review, 59.
Larson, J. et al. (2016). How we analyzed the COMPAS recidivism algorithm. ProPublica, 9(1).
Lopes, G. (2021). Cognitive Bias in the Judiciary: The Role of Cognitive Enhancement. 34th International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Available at: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/680782
Martín Diz, F. (2020). Inteligencia artificial y proceso: Garantías frente a eficiencia en el entorno de los derechos procesales fundamentales. En F. Jiménez Conde y R. Bellido Penades. Justicia: ¿Garantías Versus Eficiencia?. Tirant Lo Blanch.
Monteith, M., Lybarger, J. and Woodcock, A. (2009). Schooling the cognitive monster: The role of motivation in the regulation and control of prejudice. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(3), pp. 211-226.
Montero Aroca, J. et al. (2008). Derecho jurisdiccional(I. Parte general). Tirant Lo Blanch.
Montero Aroca, J. et al. (2014). Derecho jurisdiccional (I. Parte general). Tirant Lo Blanch.
Mora-Sanguinetti, J. S. (2022). La factura de la injusticia. Tecnos.
Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of general psychology, pp. 175-220
Nieva Fenoll, J. (2006). La cosa juzgada. Atelier.
Nieva Fenoll, J. (2007). Enjuiciamiento prima facie. Atelier.
Nieva Fenoll, J. (2010). La valoración de la prueba. Marcial Pons.
Nieva Fenoll, J. (2013). La duda en el proceso penal. Marcial Pons.
Nieva Fenoll, J. (2016). La razón de ser de la presunción de inocencia. InDret, 1.
Nieva Fenoll, J. (2018). Inteligencia artificial y proceso judicial. Marcial Pons.
Nieva Fenoll, J. (2022a). El proceso penal actual: entre la fe y la tecnología. En V. Gómez Martín et al., Un modelo integral de Derecho penal. Libro homenaje a la profesora Mirentxu Corcoy Bidasolo. Ediciones BOE.
Nieva Fenoll, J. (2022b). Derecho procesal I. Tirant Lo Blanch.
Oldfather, C. (2008). Writing, cognition, and the nature of the judicial function. The Georgetown Law Journal, 96, pp. 1284-1320.
O’neil, C. (2018). Armas de destrucción matemática: cómo el big data aumenta la desigualdad y amenaza la democracia. Capitán swing.
Perkins, D. and Ritchhart, R. (2010). ¿Cuándo se piensa bien?. En M. Carretero y M. Asensio. Psicología del pensamiento. Alianza.
Picó i Junoy, J. (1998). La imparcialidad judicial y sus garantías: la abstención y la recusación. Bosch.
Posner, R. (2011). Cómo deciden los jueces. Marcial Pons.
Prieto Castro, L. (1952). Tratado de derecho procesal civil. Sáez.
Prieto Castro, L. (1980). Derecho procesal civil (Vol. I). Tecnos.
Rachlinski, J. et al. (2009). Does Unconscious Racial Bias Affect Trial Judges?. Notre Dame Law Review, 84, pp. 1195-1246.
Ramos Méndez, F. (1978). Derecho y proceso. Bosch.
Rumiati, R. and Bona, C. (2019). Dalla testimonianza alla sentenza. Il giudizio tra mente e cervello. Il Mulino.
Sadler-Smith, E. (2016). Mente intuitiva. UOC.
Satta, S. (1968). Il mistero del processo. En S. Satta, Soliloqui e colloqui di un giurista. CEDAM.
Satta, S. and Punzi, C. (2000). Diritto procesuale civile. CEDAM.
Serra Domínguez, M. (1950). Nueva enciclopedia jurídica (Tomo XX). Seix.
Serra Domínguez, M. (1969). Estudios de derecho procesal. Ariel
Stanovich, K. (2011). Rationality and the reflective mind. Oxford University Press.
Sunstein, C. and Jolls, C. (2006). The law of implicit bias. California Law Review, 94.
Taruffo, M. (2008). La prueba. Marcial Pons.
Thornburg, E. (2019). (Un)Conscious Judging. Washington & Lee Law Review, 76.
Torralba, F. (2018). El món volàtil. Columna.
Uhlmann, E. and Cohen, G. (2007). “I think it, therefore it’s true”: Effects of self-perceived objectivity on hiring discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104.
Wistrich, A. and Rachilinki, J. (2017). Implicit bias in judicial decision making how it affects judgment and what judges can do about it. En S. Redfield, Enhancing justice: reducing bias. ABA Book Publishing.
Jurisprudence and law
A Coruña Provincial Court Sentence (Spain) 516/2011 (Civil jurisdiction), December 5th of 2011
Constitutional Court Sentence (Spain) 149/2013 (Sala Primera), 9 October of 2013
España. Ley 2/2020, de 27 de julio, por la que se modifica el artículo 324 de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal. (BOE, núm. 204, 28/07/2020, pp. 58804-58805)
España. Ley 36/2011, de 10 de octubre, reguladora de la jurisdicció social. (BOE, núm. 245, 11/10/2011)
España. Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal. https://www.boe.es/biblioteca_juridica/abrir_pdf.php?id=PUB-DP-2023-145
España. Ley Orgánica 6/1985, de 1 de julio, del Poder Judicial. (BOE, núm. 157, 02/07/1985)
Madrid Provincial Court Sentence (Spain) 334/2010, 25 October of 2010
Pescador Valero v. Spain, nº 62435/00, European Court of Human Rights, 17 June 2003
Supreme Court Sentence (Spain) 647/2014 (Criminal Chamber), 9 October of 2014 (appeal 446/2014)
Supreme Court Sentence (Spain) 687/2015 (Criminal Chamber), 4 November of 2015 (appeal 10438/2015)
Supreme Court Sentence (Spain) 104/2010 (Criminal Chamber), 3 February of 2010 (appeal 767/2009)
Supreme Court Sentence (Spain) 2505/2001 (Criminal Chamber), 26 December of 2001 (appeal 3026/1999)
Supreme Court Sentence (Spain) 123/2004 (Criminal Chamber), 6 February of 2004 (appeal 2775/2002)
Supreme Court Sentence (Spain) 441/2008 (Criminal Chamber), 10 July of 2008 (appeal 2509/2007)
Supreme Court Sentence (Spain) 665/2015 (Criminal Chamber), 29 October of 2015 (appeal 736/2015)
Supreme Court Sentence (Spain) 1036/2013 (Criminal Chamber), 26 December of 2013 (appeal 648/2013)
Supreme Court Sentence (Spain) 165/2005 (Civil Chamber), 14 March of 2005 (appeal 3938/1998)
Supreme Court Sentence (Spain) 93/2018 (Criminal Chamber), 23 February of 2018 (appeal 1304/2017)
Supreme Court Sentence (Spain) 915/2016 (Criminal Chamber), 2 December of 2016 (appeal 958/2016)
Thomann v. Switzerland, nº 17602/91, European Court of Human Rights, 10 June 1996
Valencia Provincial Court Sentence (Spain) 246/2003 (Civil Chamber), 22 April of 2003
Zaragoza Provincial Court Sentence (Spain) 310/2021 (Criminal Chamber), 26 July of 2021
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i6.22932Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2024 Miquel Julià-Pijoan
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.