THE METHA EXPERTISE, THE CRITIQUE EVIDENCE AND THE METHA EXPERT PROOF IN NATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE JURISPRUDENCE, HOW TO UNDERSTAND THEM FOR A RATIONAL AND FAIR DECISION

Abstract

The decisions of the courts expressed in the sentences must always reach, beyond the common good, the stability of the law and according to that, what is considered fair, all protected by a rational and logical process. However, within this conceptual framework, it seems that the courts have not realized about the correct use that they should give to certain signifiers, going so far as to confuse or even transform, without any authority in the use of language, concepts or ideas into synonyms that, from the theory of language, do not mean the same thing. Thus, metha-expertise, and metha-expertise proof are not synonyms, although in forensic practice, both legal operators and judges tend to homologate them, reducing them to the scope of evidence or as a particular type of evidence. As will be seen in this article, metha-expertise is a concept; a mental representation of an activity or task called metha-expertise that precedes metha-expertise proof, the latter being the instrument through which it is intended to prove or discredit another.