Submitted by Sara Ribeiro (sara.ribeiro@ucb.br) on 2017-08-14T14:24:37Z No. of bitstreams: 1 RicardoPerinNardiDissertacao2016.pdf: 1076205 bytes, checksum: ed2cbd304304f71bd3a54a7123d7f2bf (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Sara Ribeiro (sara.ribeiro@ucb.br) on 2017-08-14T14:24:44Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 RicardoPerinNardiDissertacao2016.pdf: 1076205 bytes, checksum: ed2cbd304304f71bd3a54a7123d7f2bf (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-08-14T14:24:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 RicardoPerinNardiDissertacao2016.pdf: 1076205 bytes, checksum: ed2cbd304304f71bd3a54a7123d7f2bf (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-11-26 / This study supports the idea that circumstantial evidence makes possible to obtain the truth in criminal procedure. Therefore, we argue, first, that the truth obtained in criminal procedure doesn???t differ from the truth obtained in other branches of science, although there are certain limitations imposed by other similar weight values of the truth, such as sealing the taking of evidence by illegal terms. Having established this premise and adopting the theory of truth as correspondence, we argue that the analysis of the evidentiary argument must submit the inference to the most coherent theory of the case, which basically consists of a logical method of analysis of evidential reasoning that the hypothesis must explain more coherently the available evidence, which supports the hypothesis. / O presente estudo defende a ideia de que a prova por ind??cios possibilita obten????o da verdade no processo penal. Para tanto, defendemos, em primeiro lugar, que a verdade obtida no processo penal n??o se difere da verdade obtida nos demais ramos da ci??ncia, conquanto haja determinadas limita????es impostas por outros valores de semelhante peso ?? verdade, como ?? o caso da veda????o ?? obten????o de provas por meios il??citos. Estabelecida essa premissa, e adotando a teoria da verdade com correspond??ncia, defendemos que a an??lise do argumento probat??rio deve seguir o m??todo da infer??ncia para a explica????o mais coerente, que consiste, basicamente, em um m??todo l??gico de an??lise do racioc??nio probat??rio em que a hip??tese deve explicar de forma mais coerente as evid??ncias dispon??veis, as quais sustentam a hip??tese.

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.