Abstract
The present work examines the practice of epistemic injustice by attributition of credibility excess to awarded collaborators. The question that is being investigated is: do the collaborators’ narratives receive exaggerated confidence? In order to be characterized as a type of epistemic injustice, such excess of credibility must be due to identity prejudices (against the accused defendants) and in disagreement with the evidences of the process. The attribution of credibility excess to the versions of the collaborators is an implication of the automatic reduction of the weight attributed to the versions of the accused defendants. To address the issue, the probative value of the awarded collaboration in criminal proceedings will be discussed; explained the concept of “epistemic injustice”, identified by Miranda Fricker, and more recent developments by Jennifer Lackey and José Medina; and, finally, in order to assess whether there was epistemic injustice due to credibility excess attributed to awarded collaborators, one sentence handed down by ex-judge Sergio Moro in the scope of the Lava Jato operation.
Keywords
Cooperation agreements; Plea bargaining; Epistemic Injustice; Lava Jato