Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUMMARY
requires a prior review of the conceptual bases of logical reasoning, also called
INTRODUCTION
arguments.
The logic in judicial reasoning is much more important than its theoretical
field, and in reality, it has a major importance: the need for judicial decisions to
follow a sequence of congruence between the major premise, the minor premise
1
UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DEL ALTIPLANO
ESCUELA PROFESIONAL DERECHO
and the conclusion. The latter, we assume with veracity, can not contradict the
reasoning of the major and minor premises; and in turn, the congruence of analysis
of the minor premise - usually a factual issue - can not be manifestly opposed to
the larger premise because only in case of adequacy of the circumstances of fact -
In the proposed idea, if Article 106 of the Penal Code determines the penalty of
homicide - major premise - and Juan will kill Pedro - minor premise - the adequate
objectionable, however, that many of the judicial cases are not so simple, since
there are countless circumstances, both attenuating and aggravating, that the
judge must assess, and despite this , if a relevant question is configured: the
reasoning of the premises can validly lead to a conclusion, and this is the value of
logic for the discipline of Law in general, that is, that there is a procedural
And notwithstanding the assertion, in the same previous case, what would happen
if one of the formal premises in that logical exercise was false? Well obviously
there would not be a valid conclusion. It could happen, for example, that the norm
had been repealed, or that John had indeed killed Pedro but in self-defense. If the
2
UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DEL ALTIPLANO
ESCUELA PROFESIONAL DERECHO
latter had happened, it would be false to speak of a homicide in the broad sense,
as indicated in article 106 of the Penal Code, from which it would be inferred that
sustain the validity of reasoning and strictly speaking, logic no longer guarantees
To reinforce the idea, what would happen if our main premise said: "All the judges
in this town are studious, tenacious and dedicated lawyers", our minor premise:
"Juan is a judge" and our conclusion "Juan is a studious, tenacious judge. and
dedicated "? We would probably follow a subscriptive scheme and affirm that Juan
actually meets those conditions. However, what happens if verified a real test,
John really was a little diligent judge? In such a case, the larger premise would no
longer be true.
We must conclude, then, that logic only guarantees the formal validity of the
premises, that is, its assertions, but does not guarantee the material truth of them.
So, this statement, taken to the constitutional level, would require us to make sure
that the premises are really true and that task is no longer so simple and often
escapes the margin of certainty of logic, which only informs us a formal truth,
1
ZAVALETA RODRGUEZ Roger. Ob. Cit. Pge. 439 y 440
2 Vid ATIENZA RODRIGUEZ, Manuel. The reasons of law Palestra Editores. 2da edicin. Lima, 2004. p. 53
3
UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DEL ALTIPLANO
ESCUELA PROFESIONAL DERECHO
Well, to this point, from a general point of view, the legal reasoning, to which there
Let us appreciate, in that sequence of concepts, how important is the logic of the
judges in their reasoning with respect to specific cases, but let us caution, in the
same way that, with regard to the judicial decision, the formal logic alone denotes
CONCLUSIONS
The judge does not act as a mere applicator of the rule, from which he only has to
extract its consequences; before, it must fix the facts, choose the pertinent legal
norm, interpret it and, in light of it, qualify the factual material. The decisions you
make regarding each of these points can affect the final result (the sentence). It
must be ruled out, therefore, the idea that the judge administers justice with the
inputs provided by the legislator, simply comparing the fact with the normative
assumption, because even in the simplest cases, the judge creates a particular
rule for the specific case , given the indeterminacy of the law with respect to that
one.