Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:21:04Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Nayara Graciela Sales Brito.pdf: 1228124 bytes, checksum: 994fcb02f2abcb654e77ed919e77f2fa (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-07-06 / The scope of this study is to examine the ignorance of the law issue beginning with a historical study of criminal liability and mistake, moving on to the birth of culpability theories and the approaches to the knowledge of unlawfulness. This study addresses the development of culpability and mistake of law in Brazil, mainly through the study of Brazilian criminal statutes and bills. To this end, this study shows the development of the theory around the object of the knowledge of unlawfulness, and the prevailing opinions of Brazilian jurists in the sense of considering it to be in opposition to the established order of the community. This study is justified by the complexity and importance of the topic, both to crime theory and legal pragmatics, especially when one considers the numerous statutes enacted in Brazil, many of which date from the post-industrial period, as a means of keeping up with the risks posed by a global and technological society. The theoretical framework follows the historical and chronological line, and is not intended to exhaust the approaches to the subject nor is it aimed at offering solutions to all the lines of thought herein mentioned. This study covers different conceptions of culpability: psychological, normative, finalist, and the functional views of Claus Roxin and Günther Jakobs. Next, formal, material and intermediary theories of the object of the knowledge of unlawfulness is addressed in order to attain a critical view of inexcusable nature of the ignorance of the law defense in the face of the dignity of the human person / Esta dissertação tem como escopo a análise da especial questão do desconhecimento da lei penal, partindo-se do estudo histórico da responsabilidade criminal e do erro até o advento das teorias da culpabilidade e os respectivos tratamentos sobre a consciência da ilicitude. Examina-se a evolução da culpabilidade e do erro de proibição no Brasil, sobretudo por meio do estudo dos diversos diplomas penais, como também de alguns projetos de lei. Expõem-se o desenvolvimento teórico sobre o objeto da consciência da ilicitude e a posição majoritária da doutrina brasileira no sentido de considerá-lo como sendo a contrariedade à ordem comunitária. Justifica-se o trabalho pela complexidade e relevância do tema, tanto para a teoria do delito, quanto para a pragmática jurídica, mormente em se considerando a edição de inúmeras leis que ingressam no ordenamento jurídico pátrio, muitas delas advindas do período pós- industrial, como meio de se acompanhar os riscos da sociedade globalizada e tecnológica. O percurso teórico filia-se à linha histórico-cronológica, sem a pretensão de esgotar as abordagens relativas ao assunto, nem oferecer soluções para todas as correntes de pensamento expostas. Apresentam-se as concepções sobre a culpabilidade: psicológicas, normativas, finalistas e as visões funcionalistas de Claus Roxin e de Günther Jakobs. Em seguida, o estudo perpassa pelas teorias formal, material e intermediária do objeto da consciência da ilicitude, para se alcançar um posicionamento crítico da inescusabilidade da ignorância da lei penal em face do princípio da culpabilidade e da dignidade da pessoa humana

Le discernement est traditionnellement rattaché à l’étude de l’élément moral de l’infraction.Sous l’empire du Code pénal de 1810, des fondements de droit naturel sont à l’oeuvre, si bien que le discernement fut défini par emprunt au droit canon comme une aptitude à distinguer le bien du mal. Mais cette acception ne révèle pas la teneur originelle du critère du libre-arbitre :il correspondait à la connaissance de la loi divine dont le droit séculier n’était que le reflet.L’analyse du droit positif laïcisé invite à découvrir l’existence d’une présomption de connaissance de la loi toujours aussi impérative que dans les systèmes de pénalité antiques.Le discernement peut alors être défini comme une conscience réflexive : la connaissance des droits et devoirs reconnus à chaque personne, au sein de statuts juridiques que la prolifération des normes contribue à préciser. Aussi, la culpabilité n’est pas une connaissance de l’illicéité d’un résultat ; elle procède de l’ignorance des prescriptions légales chez celui qui est présumé en connaître l’existence. En procédure pénale, cette présomption devient protectrice des droits du mis en cause. Aucun acte coercitif ne peut être exercé à son encontre s’il n’a été avisé du statut dont il relève. Cette information assure ainsi la finalité rétributive de la peine chez celui qui n’ignore pas les raisons de sa condamnation. En tout état de cause, la soumission des individus au droit pénal est le seul objectif poursuivi en la matière, ce qui nécessite parfois la présence de victimes au procès pénal, à la seule fin de préserver leur foi en son impérativité. / Discernment is traditionally attached to the study of the « moral element » of the offense. Under the influence of the Penal Code of 1810, the foundations of natural law are at work, so that the discernment was defined by canon law as the ability to distinguish good from evil. But this understanding does not reveal the content of the original criterion of free will: it used to correspond to the knowledge of the divine law which secular law was only the reflection. The analysis of positive law secularized invites you to discover the existence of a presumption of knowledge of the law as imperative as it was in the systems of ancient penalty. Discernment can then be defined as a reflexive consciousness: the awareness of rights and obligations identified to each person within legal statutes that the proliferation of standards helps to clarify. Also, guilt is not a knowledge of the wrongfulness of an outcome; it proceeds fromignorance of the legal requirements in the person who is presumed to know of its existence. In criminal proceedings, this presumption becomes protective of the rights of the suspect. No coercive act can be exercised against him if he has not been notified of the status to which he belongs. This information ensures the retributive purpose of punishment, for the one who can’t ignore the reasons for his conviction. In any event, the submission of individuals to the established rules is the only objective of the criminal law, which might imply that it accepts the presence of victims in criminal proceedings, for the sole purpose of preserving their faith in his imperativity.