No description available.

Expert Opinion and Its Assessment Abstract Expert opinion is an important institute for professional evaluation of facts and is widely used in public and private law. This thesis primarily focuses on the examination of expert opinion as a means of proof from the point of view of civil procedural law. In civil procedure, an expert opinion often serves as a basis for issuing a court decision. For this reason, high requirements are placed not only on the persons of experts but on expert opinion itself as well. This thesis focuses on the judicial assessments of an expert opinion, i.e. the judicial evaluation of whether the expert opinion meets all the requirements that it should meet by law. Special emphasis is placed on the reviewability of the expert opinion, as it is a prerequisite for any evaluation. Furthermore, the criteria for judicial review of expert conclusions are determined and defined in this thesis. They include legality, relevance and truthfulness. The criterion of factual correctness is examined in more detail, as its application is the most conflicting within the academic circles. However, this work argues and concludes that the court should subject the expert opinion to a full assessment, including the review of factual correctness, otherwise a court decision could ultimately be a...

O presente trabalho pretende abordar o processo de execução penal sob o enfoque da Lei nº 7.210/84 e investigar se o exame criminológico realmente é hábil e imprescindível para fornecer subsídios para o julgador formar seu convencimento e tomar a decisão mais acertada no que concerne aos pedidos de progressão de regime e livramento condicional, de maneira a assegurar a efetividade da execução penal e ao mesmo tempo compatibilizar o interesse de reconquista da liberdade pelo condenado com a necessidade de se garantir a segurança social. Para isso, são feitas considerações acerca da Lei de Execução Penal, responsável por consolidar a natureza jurisdicional da execução penal, comentando-se o papel das partes e do juiz no processo executório. Na sequência, examina-se a disciplina da prova no âmbito da execução penal, em especial a prova pericial, uma vez que o exame criminológico é uma perícia. Após conceituar o exame criminológico e diferenciá-lo dos outros instrumentos de avaliação do apenado, comenta-se sobre a Lei nº 10.792/03, a partir da qual o exame criminológico deixou de ser exigência para aferir o requisito subjetivo do sentenciado. Analisa-se a dificuldade do magistrado de valorar as provas técnicas, justamente por não dispor de conhecimentos técnicos para contestar as conclusões apresentadas pelos peritos e, assim, exercer algum tipo de controle sobre aquilo que é afirmado, e o risco da aceitação acrítica dos laudos pelos julgadores, dando, indiretamente, o poder da decisão para o perito. / This work intends to show the criminal enforcement process under the focus of Law nº 7.210/84 and investigate whether the criminological examination is essential and able to offer elements to guide the judge to make a fair decision about the convicts requests, in order to ensure that the criminal enforcement process will be respected as well as it will make compatible the social reintegration of the convicted with the maintenance of a safe society. In this regard, comments about the Law of Penal Execution that gave the jurisdictional nature to the criminal enforcement will be done, describing the lawyers acts, the district attorneys activities and the judges work. Then the evidences system in the criminal enforcement process will be analyzed, paying particular attention to expert evidence, since the criminological examination is an expertise. After defining the criminological examination and comparing it with other assessment tools of the guilty party, it will be discussed the Law nº 10.792/03 that dismiss the criminological examination to find out the subjective requirement of the prisoner. Finally it will be analyzed the difficulty of the judge to evaluate the technical evidences, because it is out of his knowledge and for this reason he does not have the tools to contest the explanations and/or conclusions given by experts, therefore he can not control the affirmations and there is the risk of acceptance of the reports by the judge without critical sense, indirectly giving the power of decision to the expert.

O presente trabalho pretende abordar o processo de execução penal sob o enfoque da Lei nº 7.210/84 e investigar se o exame criminológico realmente é hábil e imprescindível para fornecer subsídios para o julgador formar seu convencimento e tomar a decisão mais acertada no que concerne aos pedidos de progressão de regime e livramento condicional, de maneira a assegurar a efetividade da execução penal e ao mesmo tempo compatibilizar o interesse de reconquista da liberdade pelo condenado com a necessidade de se garantir a segurança social. Para isso, são feitas considerações acerca da Lei de Execução Penal, responsável por consolidar a natureza jurisdicional da execução penal, comentando-se o papel das partes e do juiz no processo executório. Na sequência, examina-se a disciplina da prova no âmbito da execução penal, em especial a prova pericial, uma vez que o exame criminológico é uma perícia. Após conceituar o exame criminológico e diferenciá-lo dos outros instrumentos de avaliação do apenado, comenta-se sobre a Lei nº 10.792/03, a partir da qual o exame criminológico deixou de ser exigência para aferir o requisito subjetivo do sentenciado. Analisa-se a dificuldade do magistrado de valorar as provas técnicas, justamente por não dispor de conhecimentos técnicos para contestar as conclusões apresentadas pelos peritos e, assim, exercer algum tipo de controle sobre aquilo que é afirmado, e o risco da aceitação acrítica dos laudos pelos julgadores, dando, indiretamente, o poder da decisão para o perito. / This work intends to show the criminal enforcement process under the focus of Law nº 7.210/84 and investigate whether the criminological examination is essential and able to offer elements to guide the judge to make a fair decision about the convicts requests, in order to ensure that the criminal enforcement process will be respected as well as it will make compatible the social reintegration of the convicted with the maintenance of a safe society. In this regard, comments about the Law of Penal Execution that gave the jurisdictional nature to the criminal enforcement will be done, describing the lawyers acts, the district attorneys activities and the judges work. Then the evidences system in the criminal enforcement process will be analyzed, paying particular attention to expert evidence, since the criminological examination is an expertise. After defining the criminological examination and comparing it with other assessment tools of the guilty party, it will be discussed the Law nº 10.792/03 that dismiss the criminological examination to find out the subjective requirement of the prisoner. Finally it will be analyzed the difficulty of the judge to evaluate the technical evidences, because it is out of his knowledge and for this reason he does not have the tools to contest the explanations and/or conclusions given by experts, therefore he can not control the affirmations and there is the risk of acceptance of the reports by the judge without critical sense, indirectly giving the power of decision to the expert.

Submitted by SBI Biblioteca Digital (sbi.bibliotecadigital@puc-campinas.edu.br) on 2018-03-27T18:51:02Z No. of bitstreams: 1 LUISA BASTOS GOMES.pdf: 1412598 bytes, checksum: ea727ad18de502ab68a256bc28b9183b (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-03-27T18:51:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 LUISA BASTOS GOMES.pdf: 1412598 bytes, checksum: ea727ad18de502ab68a256bc28b9183b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-02-15 / CNPQ / Considering creativity and resilience as important personal characteristics reported in the scientific literature, especially in the Positive Psychology movement, this research carries out studies focusing on the relationship between the two constructs by applying validated instrument to adults. Two psychometric studies were carried out, both involving the search for evidence of validity based on relationship with external variables, precisely the convergent type. The first study used the instrument Creative and Thinking Styles (2003) with the Pillars of Resiliency Scales test (Cardoso & Martins, 2013) in a sample of 134 subjects, with 64% (n = 86) of female participants, aged between 18 and 65 years (M = 32.27 and DP = 11.75). The second study used once more Pillars of Resiliency Scales test (2013) and the test Thinking Creatively with Words-Torrance Tests (Wechsler, 2006) in a sample of 101 subjects, with 66% (n = 67) of female participants, between the ages of 18 and 65 years old. The results of the study 1 showed positive and significant correlations between all the pillars of resiliency and the Nonconformist-Transformer Style, as well as negative correlations in the majority of the pillars of resiliency with the Cautious-Reflective Style. In study 2, no significant correlations were displayed between the creative measures offered by Torrance and the pillars of resiliency. We discuss the possible relationship found in results between qualitative and quantitative measures of creativity and its affinity with resilience, and finally, we suggest further studies should be conducted with other instruments that assess other resiliency models. / Considerando a criatividade e a resili?ncia como importantes caracter?sticas pessoais relatadas na literatura cient?fica, especialmente dentro do movimento da Psicologia Positiva, essa pesquisa tem como objetivo realizar estudos que investiguem a rela??o entre os dois construtos. Foram realizados dois estudos psicom?tricos, ambos envolvendo a busca por evid?ncias de validade com base na rela??o com vari?veis externas, do tipo convergente. O primeiro estudo utilizou o instrumento Estilos de Pensar e Criar com o teste Escalas Pilares de Resili?ncia em uma amostra de 134 sujeitos, sendo que 64% (n=86) dos participantes eram do sexo feminino, com idade entre 18 e 65 anos (M = 32,27 e DP = 11,75). Os resultados apontaram correla??es positivas e significativas entre todas os pilares de resili?ncia e o estilo Inconformista-Transformador, assim como correla??es negativas de grande parte dos pilares de resili?ncia com o estilo Cauteloso-Reflexivo. O segundo estudo utilizou novamente o instrumento Escala de Pilares de Resili?ncia e o Teste Pensando Criativamente com Palavras de Torrance em uma amostra de 101 sujeitos, sendo que 66% (n=67) eram do sexo feminino, com idade entre 18 e 65 anos (M = 28,83 e DP = 11,63). N?o foram encontradas correla??es significativas entre as medidas criativas proporcionadas pelo Torrance e os pilares de resili?ncia. Discute-se as poss?veis rela??es entre as diferen?as encontradas quando se faz uso de medida qualitativa e quantitativa da criatividade na sua rela??o com a resili?ncia. Por fim, sugere-se novos estudos com outros instrumentos que avaliem a resili?ncia a partir de outros modelos.

The traditional model of initial training of judges in Spain and in other countries has been focused, and is still focused, on the mechanical digestion of a pile of stereotyped notions related to several legal subjects.This knowledge is presented with no references to specific legal disputes and does not meet at all, neither the profile of modern complex constitutional legal systems consisting of several levels, internally changing and conflicting; nor the practice of those systems. It does correspond, however, the historical model of the Napoleonic judge, who tends to act as a mechanical enforcer of the law and the longa manu of the real power rather than guardian of the citizens’ basic rights. The alternative to this kind of judicial training would be a system of training incorporating a high quality operative knowledge of the positive law actually in force, together with a theoretical-philosophical training in line with the suggestions made by Manuel Sacristán of «a level of exercise of thinking» based on the specific field and activity inherent to that group of legal practitioners. / El modelo tradicional de formación inicial de jueces para el desempeño del rol, en España, pero no solo, se ha cifrado y se cifra en la asimilación mecánica de todo un cúmulo de nociones estereotipadas relativas a las diversas disciplinas. Se trata de un bagaje que, por su carácter desproblematizador, no se ajusta en absoluto al perfil de los modernos ordenamientos constitucionales complejos, dotados de distintos niveles y, con frecuencia, internamente conflictivos y cambiantes; y menos a su práctica.Pero responde, en cambio, al histórico tipo de juez del modelo napoleónico, longa manu del poder en acto más que garante de derechos, tendencial aplicador mecánico. La alternativa a esta clase de formación estaría en otra que incorporase a un buen conocimiento operativo del derecho positivo en su ser actual y realmente vigente, una formación teórico-filosófica en la línea sugerida una vez por Manuel Sacristán, como «un nivel de ejercicio del pensamiento» a partir de y sobre el específico campo temático y de la actividad propia de tal clase de operadores.