Abstract

This is an investigation about the expressions "judicial narration", "account of events", "judicial history", among others, that lawyers use to refer to the judges' work. Its hypothesis accepts the existence of a text fragment which has narration functions in sentences and its objective is to criticize a regulatory model about judicial narration which uses the explanation concept, typical of The Philosophy of Science, to replace this idea for von Wright's concept of comprehension. To fulfill this objective the research sets the possible meanings of the expression "judicial narration" and outlines the model which criticizes and uses three authors who share it in different ways: Ferrajoli, Coloma and Larroucau. Then, it decides the extension of the "Hempelian" concept of scientific explanation and presents von Wright's consecutive criticism. The criticism expressed by the author to the model of judicial narration is based on two types of reasons: the limitations of the concept of scientific explanation because of its link to the ideas of simplicity, prediction, generalization and neutrality, and some of the lawyers' expectations about judicial decision and sentence in terms of that judicial work not only represents and explains the past giving an intention to an agent but also it is expected to be representative of the way in which public spheres of society mean the action judged. With these arguments, it is concluded that the judicial narration model must be rethought.