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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:IBICT/oai:bdtd.ucb.br:tede/2221 |
| Date | 26 November 2016 |
| Creators | Nardi, Ricardo Perin |
| Contributors | Aguiar, J??lio C??sar de |
| Publisher | Universidade Cat??lica de Bras??lia, Programa Strictu Sensu em Direito, UCB, Brasil, Escola de Humanidade e Direito |
| Source Sets | IBICT Brazilian ETDs |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UCB, instname:Universidade Católica de Brasília, instacron:UCB |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.245 seconds