Made available in DSpace on 2015-04-14T14:48:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 447625.pdf: 105705 bytes, checksum: c9e5b4b7310636b121ebf30cb0e4d16a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-03-26 / Nowadays a tough battle is held on Penal Process. The expansion on debates seen on the mass Communication Systems about Penal Process has made it to become popular, the desire for punishment and reprimand has been taking up more space on the communication vehicles and on the criminal process pages, which demands that our democratic structure is followed more than never and this also requires that the constitutional reform to the penal process is not put off anymore. As a new approach to comprehend the process situation is developed, we should also evaluate the judge's role. It is undeniable the power given to whom is judging, which has clear importance to any reform to the penal process. That defines judge's role in a penal process, thereafter to analyze the judge, his influences, his subjectvities and the way it can affect the judgment we will have for this country. It is a must to shift the problem to the preliminary investigation as this is the moment when individual guarantees established constitutionally are less observed although it is when proofs that will influence the judge the most are produced , Therefore preliminary investigation has to be modified to fit to what is defined on the constitution, which also results in modifications to judge's role. This it is time to accept the new, to recognize the problem and take on the fact that we must not put off a reform that will give a new shape to the constitution, that will ensure to persons the respect to their rights. Taking that into consideration the guarantee judge becomes an extreme relevant role, that will be at least an agent to reduce the damage that is seen in penal process currently, in how we conceive the judge and treat the preliminary investigation phase / Hodiernamente, trava-se uma ferrenha luta em nosso processo penal, dada a expans?o dos debates, representadas pela ocupa??o cada vez maior de assuntos relacionados com o tema na m?dia, o processo se popularizou. E, com isto, anseios punitivistas e repressivos passaram a cada vez mais ocupar a m?dia e as folhas dos processos criminais. Da? a necessidade de fazer valer a garantia de nossa estrutura??o democr?tica de Estado, da? a necessidade de n?o mais poder se adiar uma reforma constitucional de nosso processo. Ao necessitarmos de uma reforma, de uma nova forma de compreender a situa??o processual, devemos avaliar, sempre a atua??o do julgador frente ? este. Ineg?vel o poder concedido ao juiz, o que torna evidente a sua relev?ncia para qualquer reforma que se pretenda no processo penal. Com isto, se define a atua??o do julgador em um processo penal constitucional e, a partir da?, se analisa o julgador em si, suas influ?ncias, suas subjetividades e a forma como estas podem influenciar num julgamento que teremos e no processo que queremos para o nosso pa?s. Para isto, imprescind?vel o deslocamento do problema para a fase de investiga??o preliminar, por ser este o momento em que as garantias individuais, previstas constitucionalmente, s?o mais vilipendiadas e, paradoxalmente, ? o momento onde se produzem as provas que mais influenciam no convencimento do julgador. Por isto, deve-se adequar a investiga??o preliminar aos ditames constitucionais, o que exige uma adequa??o do papel do julgador ? este.Sendo assim, ? hora de aceitar o novo, de reconhecer o problema e assumir que n?o mais podemos adiar uma reforma que venha a dar ao nosso processo penal uma roupagem constitucional, que assegure aos indiv?duos o respeito ? jurisdicionalidade e todas as suas vincula??es. E quanto ? isto, o juiz de garantias se apresenta como um elemento de extrema relev?ncia, que vir? a ser, no m?nimo, um redutor dos danos que hoje verificamos em nosso processo penal, na forma como concebemos o julgador e tratamos da fase de investiga??o preliminar

Made available in DSpace on 2015-04-14T14:34:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 452923.pdf: 1693972 bytes, checksum: 158a01c84e2fe346f4999fbae55c9c60 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-08-31 / This paper examines the role of the judge in conducting civil cases throughout history since the Middle Ages, during which germinated the formation of the two legal traditions of the Western world - civil law and common law. It starts with the approach of the relationship between the political and social context to jurisdiction, seeking to establish the connection between the concentration and the strengthening of state power, the centralization of legal activity in the state and the appreciation of the task of legal rules enforcement by the courts, determined in civil law, on the one hand, and the devolution of political power, the overvaluation of the parties performance and the prominence of the particularities of the case, attested in common law, on the other, with the formatting process of two contrasted models, both aiming to solve the conflict, and, nevertheless, absorbing differently the partial change in the purpose of government action during the transition state from liberal to welfare state. It follows the finding that, despite the assignment of a positive responsibility to conduct the case to the judge since the late nineteenth century, each tradition reacted in its own way, demonstrating the obvious disadvantages of the bulking of judicial discretion in English and especially American settings and the assumption of an authoritarian-interventionist posture in Continental and Latin-American sceneries. Following the approach, it is portrayed the contours assumed by legal phenomenon in a democratic state under rule of law, in which, given the recognition of normative principles, legal process should become the arena where concrete cases are effectively debated and decided with reference to legal and constitutional system. As a result, it is recognized the need that such results obtain a procedural and substantive legitimacy, which is achieved by allowing parties to participate in the construction of the solution that involves their cause, but whose gear is driven by the judge, who has the duty to give hints and feedbacks as it is embodied in the German procedural system in order to attain the conformation of a suitable procedure, balanced and real opportunities of thorough discussion, a quick decision and a disposition by settlement, when appropriate. / O presente trabalho examina o papel do juiz na dire??o do processo, ao longo da hist?ria a contar da Idade M?dia, per?odo no qual germinada a forma??o das duas tradi??es jur?dicas do mundo ocidental civil law e common law. Parte-se da abordagem da rela??o entre o contexto pol?tico-social e a jurisdi??o, buscando estabelecer a conex?o entre a concentra??o e o fortalecimento do poder estatal, a centraliza??o da atividade jur?dica no Estado e a valoriza??o da tarefa de aplica??o da lei pelo juiz, verificada em civil law, de um lado, e a desconcentra??o do poder pol?tico, a sobrevaloriza??o da atua??o das partes no processo e a proemin?ncia das peculiaridades do caso concreto, atestada em common law, de outro, com a formata??o de dois modelos contrapostos de processo, ambos voltados ? solu??o de conflitos mas que restam por absorver, de forma diversa, a parcial mudan?a na finalidade da atua??o estatal, na transi??o do Estado Liberal para o Estado Social. Segue-se a verifica??o de que, n?o obstante a atribui??o da dire??o do processo ao juiz desde o final do s?culo XIX, em ambos os contextos, cada qual a repercutiu de determinada forma, restando evidentes as desvantagens do avultamento da discricionariedade judicial nos cen?rios ingl?s e, sobretudo, estadunidense, e a assun??o de um car?ter autorit?rio-interventivo da postura do magistrado no painel europeu-continental e latinoamericano. Na sequ?ncia, retratam-se os contornos assumidos pelo fen?meno jur?dico no ?mbito do Estado Democr?tico de Direito, onde, dado o reconhecimento da normatividade dos princ?pios, o processo deve transformar-se no espa?o em que efetivamente se controvertam situa??es f?ticas concretas, a serem decididas com o referencial do ordenamento jur?dico-constitucional. Decorre da? a necessidade de que seus resultados legitimem-se processual e materialmente, o que se d? pela abertura ? participa??o das partes na constru??o da solu??o jur?dica da causa que as envolva, mas cuja engrenagem ? orientada pela atua??o do juiz na dire??o material do processo, nos termos como consagrado o instituto no sistema processual alem?o, de forma que se assegurem a conforma??o de um procedimento id?neo, oportunidades reais e equilibradas do debate exaustivo, um r?pido deslide do feito e, sendo aconselh?vel, o seu encerramento pela via da autocomposi??o.