Challenges in the application of Stephen Toulmin’s argumentative framework for the ecuadorian judicial system

Abstract

Ecuadorian judicial proceedings conclude with sentences based on deductive reasoning according to the theory of judicial syllogism. However, this approach has limitations, as it assumes an absolute truth and does not consider the normative dimension as evaluable. For this reason, Stephen Toulmin’s argumentative scheme is proposed as a more adequate alternative, since it allows structuring and justifying judicial decisions from a pragmatic perspective. This research was carried out with the objective of analyzing the challenges of applying Stephen Toulmin’s argumentative scheme in the elaboration of sentences in the Ecuadorian judicial system. The methodology used is based on an interpretative paradigm, with a qualitative approach, descriptive level focused on pragmatic models in Ecuadorian sentences, facing the current shortcomings from the formal logical perspective of dogmatic type; using deductive and exegetical as general methods; and Gadamerian hermeneutics, dogmatic and normative as particular methods; based on the technique of documentary research, using the bibliographic record instrument. In conclusion, traditional logic, the violation of the right to due process in the guarantee of motivation, and the lack of relation between premises and conclusion, have allowed the existence of incoherence and incomprehensibility in sentences, making necessary argumentation schemes such as the one proposed by Toulmin; a new jurisprudence is needed that combines practical elements with a logical-formal analysis.