Submitted by Caroline Xavier (caroline.xavier@pucrs.br) on 2017-05-11T14:26:12Z No. of bitstreams: 1 DIS_PAULO_THIAGO_FERNANDES_DIAS_PARCIAL.pdf: 793965 bytes, checksum: 6b187c3e0f0633990694e880f89aa7a2 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-05-11T14:26:12Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 DIS_PAULO_THIAGO_FERNANDES_DIAS_PARCIAL.pdf: 793965 bytes, checksum: 6b187c3e0f0633990694e880f89aa7a2 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-12-01 / This dissertation, linked to the Contemporary Legal and Criminal Systems line of research of the Graduate Program in Criminal Sciences stricto sensu of the Faculty of Law, is an expansive interdisciplinary, historical and in-depth study, concerning the unconstitutionality and unconventionality of how the adage in dubio pro societate incides into the judicial order, as a form of solving legal doubts as to the sufficiency of evidence as to criminal authorship and proof of materiality. Based on hermeneutical discussions, we seek to examine the decision-making act, notably in judicial analysis of the evidence produced by the parties. In this sense, the study found that such judicial protagonism, rather than providing fundamental rights protection, functions in fact, as a reminder of the inquisitorial culture to which the of Criminal Process Code of 1941 and much of the legal institutions that followed are linked. The adoption of the referred to adage as a decision-making standard for the solution of legal questions, violates the rule in dubio pro reo, or the presumption of innocence and human dignity, to the extent that it submits a person to trial, despite no certainty as to the minimum requirements for the delivery of the verdict. Finally, under the new Constitutional order established in 1988, and opening rules provided by paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 of Article 5, of the Federal Constitution, it is necessary to exercise conventional jurisdictional control of normative or judicial acts especially in the course of criminal proceedings. All of this occurs, within the continuing process of human rights internationalization of which Brazil is part of. Through a brief review, the study shows that despite all of the internal and external regulatory efforts to secure human rights, the Brazilian Judiciary, through its Superior Courts, has both systematically and massively been removing the presumption of innocence, in order to consecrate an incompatible adage to the founding values of the Republic. / A presente disserta??o, vinculada ? linha de pesquisa Sistema Jur?dico-Penais Contempor?neos do Programa de P?s-gradua??o stricto sensu em Ci?ncias Criminais da Faculdade de Direito, representa uma pesquisa expansiva e aprofundada, interdisciplinar, hist?rica sobre a (in)constitucionalidade e a (in)convencionalidade da incid?ncia do ad?gio do in dubio pro societate na decis?o de pron?ncia, como forma de solu??o da d?vida judicial quanto aos ind?cios suficientes de autoria e prova da materialidade delitivas. Com base em discuss?es de ordem hermen?utica, buscou-se analisar o ato decis?rio, notadamente no que pertine ? an?lise judicial das provas produzidas pelas partes. Nesse sentido, a investiga??o apurou que o protagonismo judicial, ao inv?s de proporcionar a prote??o dos direitos fundamentais, funciona, em verdade, como resqu?cio de uma cultura inquisit?ria da qual o C?digo de Processo Penal de 1941 e boa parte das Institui??es jur?dicas seguem vinculados. Al?m mais, a ado??o do ad?gio referido como standard probat?rio, para solu??o da d?vida judicial, viola, ao mesmo tempo, a regra do in dubio pro reo, enquanto decorr?ncia da presun??o de inoc?ncia, e a dignidade humana, na medida em que submete uma pessoa a julgamento, a despeito da n?o seguran?a quanto aos requisitos m?nimos para o proferimento da pron?ncia. Por fim, nos termos da nova ordem constitucional instaurada em 1988, e da abertura normativa proporcionada pelos ?2? e ?3?, do artigo 5?, da Constitui??o da Rep?blica, faz-se necess?rio o exerc?cio do controle jurisdicional de convencionalidade dos atos normativos e judici?rios, principalmente no bojo do processo penal. Trata-se, de um processo de internacionaliza??o dos direitos humanos do qual o Brasil se faz integrante. Em breve levantamento, a pesquisa demonstrou que, a despeito de todo o esfor?o normativo interno e externo para a valoriza??o dos direitos humanos, o Judici?rio brasileiro, por meio de seus Tribunais Superiores, vem, sistem?tica e maci?amente, afastando a presun??o de inoc?ncia para consagrar um brocardo incompat?vel com os valores fundantes da Rep?blica.

Submitted by PPG Ci?ncias Criminais (ppgccrim@pucrs.br) on 2018-04-18T20:50:41Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Disserta??o Carolina Final Homologa??o.pdf: 1868291 bytes, checksum: 884b20071fc17fcaf6ce2bc73dfc3320 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Caroline Xavier (caroline.xavier@pucrs.br) on 2018-05-07T13:46:56Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Disserta??o Carolina Final Homologa??o.pdf: 1868291 bytes, checksum: 884b20071fc17fcaf6ce2bc73dfc3320 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-05-07T13:50:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Disserta??o Carolina Final Homologa??o.pdf: 1868291 bytes, checksum: 884b20071fc17fcaf6ce2bc73dfc3320 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-12-08 / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior - CAPES / The present work is grounded on Penal System and Violence area, in the line of research on Contemporary Criminal Justice Systems of the Postgraduate Program in Criminal Sciences of PUCRS, and aims at analyzing the probative issue concerning the judge?s decision to pursue, when it allows sufficient evidence to justify, in overcoming the dubio pro reo, by the dubio pro societate. It is assumed a constitutional view of Brazilian criminal procedure of the principles studied, by the filter of the presumption of innocence guarantee in criminal proceedings. The problem under discussion is the principle of presumption of innocence and its scope of observance within Brazilian criminal proceedings, as well as the adage of the in dubio pro societate, in order to allow a deeper evidentiary dilemma contained in the judge?s decision to pursue, that is, whether sufficient evidence has the force to overcome the presumption of innocence in face of a pro-societal judgment, or not, in a criminal justice system, which is claimed to be democratic. We also worked on the specific differences between indication and evidence, as well as on differences between investigative acts and evidence acts, with the purpose of fostering a separation between these precepts and demarcating their moments of action within criminal prosecution. Finally, we presented and analyzed documentary research data, identifying vices in speeches of judge?s decision to pursue, which affirm a certain argument from authority contained in such documents, and which may end up influencing the jurors? beliefs. We concluded that there is no democratic criminal procedure without the actual observance of the principle of presumption of innocence, which must be imposed at decisive moments, surpassing any other technical principles colliding with it. / No presente trabalho, inserto na ?rea de concentra??o Sistema Penal e Viol?ncia e na linha de pesquisa Sistemas Jur?dico-Penais Contempor?neos, do Programa de P?s Gradua??o em Ci?ncias Criminais da PUCRS, buscou-se analisar, atrav?s de um olhar constitucional do processo penal brasileiro, perpassando-se os institutos estudados, pelo filtro da garantia do estado de inoc?ncia dos acusados em procedimento processual penal, a quest?o probat?ria afeita ? decis?o de pron?ncia, quando esta permite uma fundamenta??o com a afirma??o de ind?cios suficientes de autoria, em supera??o da d?vida pro reo, pela d?vida pro societate. O problema posto em discuss?o se prop?s a trabalhar o princ?pio da presun??o de inoc?ncia e seu alcance de observ?ncia dentro do processo penal p?trio, bem como o ad?gio do in dubio pro societate, a fim de permitir um aprofundamento do dilema probat?rio contido na decis?o de pron?ncia, qual seja, se ind?cios suficientes de autoria possuem for?a para superar a presun??o de inoc?ncia em face de um julgamento pr?-sociedade, ou n?o, ante um processo penal que se denomina democr?tico. Trabalhadas, ainda, as diferen?as pontuais entre ind?cios e provas, e atos de investiga??o e atos de prova, com a finalidade de propiciar um afastamento entre tais institutos e demarcar seus momentos de atua??o dentro da persecu??o penal. Ao final, apresentados e analisados dados de pesquisa documental realizada, a qual identificou v?cios em discursos exarados na decis?o de pron?ncia, os quais acabam por afirmar um certo argumento de autoridade contido em tais documentos, e que podem acabar por influenciar os jurados quando da forma??o de sua convic??o. A conclus?o ? qual se chegou foi a de que n?o h? um processo penal democr?tico sem a real observ?ncia do principio da presun??o de inoc?ncia, a qual deve se impor em momentos decis?rios, superados institutos t?cnicos que colidem com a mesma.