Epistemic Injustices: Mistakes or Imperfections? Remarks on the Quality and Correctness of Judicial Decision-Making

Abstract

The essay presents two models for evaluating the quality of decisions: the G Approach and the EI Approach. It suggests that these models can be used to understand the correctness of judicial decisions. The text then introduces a tripartite conception of judicial correctness involving gradual satisfaction and emphasises that epistemic injustices do not necessarily impact factual justification, though they do affect procedural fairness. The essay goes on to distinguish between types of damage to judicial decisions, arguing that testimonial injustices should be considered actual errors, while hermeneutical injustices should be considered imperfections. The essay's objective is to integrate the concept of epistemic injustice into the rationalist theory of evidence — a goal that is crucial to the scientific advancement of this field of study.