Pretrial detention, reasoning and proportionality: a proposal for the justification of judicial decisions
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Outros Autores: | |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/268 |
Resumo: | The research seeks to solve the problem of the lack of an adequate model to base the decisions that deal with pretrial detentions in view of its inadequate practical application. It is used as hypothesis an argumentative model based on proportionality and presented in the form of axioms, which would be able to solve the problem of reasoning, because linked to the preservation of fundamental rights. The objective is, then, to establish a model for the foundation of court decisions dealing with precautionary arrests with a view to reducing discretion. To achieve the objective of the study, the deductive method was employed, in addition to the electronic and bibliographic research means. The research took place through general and specific doctrines on the subject, as well as scientific articles. The theoretical framework uses the doctrine of Robert Alexy, of Luigi Ferrajoli, as well as the hermeneutic critique of Lenio Streck's. It is concluded by the necessary use of proportionality from a reading of philosophical hermeneutics by the decision that decrees or maintains pretrial detentions, being always necessary to pay attention to the gravity of the imposed measure and the end that it seeks to protect. Inadequate, unnecessary or extremely serious measures must not be admitted, and the concrete circumstances of the fact must be observed, being the generic and abstract motives inadmissible. |
id |
IBRASPP-1_3e2ae9223368e94c7f8068ee2ade27d3 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.revista.ibraspp.com.br:article/268 |
network_acronym_str |
IBRASPP-1 |
network_name_str |
Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Pretrial detention, reasoning and proportionality: a proposal for the justification of judicial decisionsPrisão cautelar, argumentação e proporcionalidade: uma proposta para a fundamentação das decisões judiciaisPretrial detentionProportionalityReasoningLegal ReasoningDiscretion.Prisão CautelarProporcionalidadeFundamentaçãoArgumentação JurídicaDiscricionariedade.The research seeks to solve the problem of the lack of an adequate model to base the decisions that deal with pretrial detentions in view of its inadequate practical application. It is used as hypothesis an argumentative model based on proportionality and presented in the form of axioms, which would be able to solve the problem of reasoning, because linked to the preservation of fundamental rights. The objective is, then, to establish a model for the foundation of court decisions dealing with precautionary arrests with a view to reducing discretion. To achieve the objective of the study, the deductive method was employed, in addition to the electronic and bibliographic research means. The research took place through general and specific doctrines on the subject, as well as scientific articles. The theoretical framework uses the doctrine of Robert Alexy, of Luigi Ferrajoli, as well as the hermeneutic critique of Lenio Streck's. It is concluded by the necessary use of proportionality from a reading of philosophical hermeneutics by the decision that decrees or maintains pretrial detentions, being always necessary to pay attention to the gravity of the imposed measure and the end that it seeks to protect. Inadequate, unnecessary or extremely serious measures must not be admitted, and the concrete circumstances of the fact must be observed, being the generic and abstract motives inadmissible.A pesquisa busca solucionar o problema da falta de um modelo adequado para a fundamentação das decisões que tratam sobre prisões cautelares tendo em vista a sua inadequada aplicação prática. Utiliza-se como hipótese um modelo argumentativo baseado na proporcionalidade e apresentado em forma de axiomas, o qual seria capaz de resolver o problema da fundamentação, pois atrelado a preservação de direitos fundamentais. Objetiva-se, então, estabelecer um modelo para a fundamentação de decisões judiciais que tratam sobre prisões cautelares com vistas a reduzir a discricionariedade. Para atingir o objetivo do estudo, foi empregado o método dedutivo, além dos meios de pesquisa eletrônico e bibliográfico. As pesquisas se deram por meio de doutrinas gerais e específicas sobre o assunto, bem como artigos científicos. Como referencial teórico utiliza-se a doutrina de Robert Alexy, de Luigi Ferrajoli, bem como a crítica hermenêutica do direito de Lenio Streck. Conclui-se pela necessária utilização da proporcionalidade a partir de uma leitura da hermenêutica filosófica pela decisão que decreta ou mantém prisões cautelares, sendo sempre necessário atentar-se para a gravidade da medida imposta e o fim que ela procura tutelar. Não se deve admitir medidas inadequadas, desnecessárias ou extremamente gravosas, devendo-se observar as circunstâncias concretas do fato, sendo incabíveis motivações genéricas e abstratas. Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal - IBRASPP2020-03-29info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdftext/xmlhttps://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/26810.22197/rbdpp.v6i1.268Brazilian Journal of Criminal Procedure; Vol. 6 No. 1 (2020); 483-514Revista Brasileña de Derecho Procesal Penal; Vol. 6 Núm. 1 (2020); 483-514Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal; V. 6 N. 1 (2020); 483-514Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal; v. 6 n. 1 (2020); 483-5142525-510X10.22197/rbdpp.v6i1reponame:Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online)instname:Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal (IBRASPP)instacron:IBRASPPporhttps://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/268/214https://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/268/294Copyright (c) 2020 Luiz Fernando Kazmierczak, Matheus Arcangelo Fedatoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessArcangelo Fedato, MatheusKazmierczak, Luiz Fernando2020-12-03T09:15:11Zoai:ojs.revista.ibraspp.com.br:article/268Revistahttps://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPPONGhttps://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/oairevista@ibraspp.com.br2525-510X2359-3881opendoar:2020-12-03T09:15:11Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) - Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal (IBRASPP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Pretrial detention, reasoning and proportionality: a proposal for the justification of judicial decisions Prisão cautelar, argumentação e proporcionalidade: uma proposta para a fundamentação das decisões judiciais |
title |
Pretrial detention, reasoning and proportionality: a proposal for the justification of judicial decisions |
spellingShingle |
Pretrial detention, reasoning and proportionality: a proposal for the justification of judicial decisions Arcangelo Fedato, Matheus Pretrial detention Proportionality Reasoning Legal Reasoning Discretion. Prisão Cautelar Proporcionalidade Fundamentação Argumentação Jurídica Discricionariedade. |
title_short |
Pretrial detention, reasoning and proportionality: a proposal for the justification of judicial decisions |
title_full |
Pretrial detention, reasoning and proportionality: a proposal for the justification of judicial decisions |
title_fullStr |
Pretrial detention, reasoning and proportionality: a proposal for the justification of judicial decisions |
title_full_unstemmed |
Pretrial detention, reasoning and proportionality: a proposal for the justification of judicial decisions |
title_sort |
Pretrial detention, reasoning and proportionality: a proposal for the justification of judicial decisions |
author |
Arcangelo Fedato, Matheus |
author_facet |
Arcangelo Fedato, Matheus Kazmierczak, Luiz Fernando |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Kazmierczak, Luiz Fernando |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Arcangelo Fedato, Matheus Kazmierczak, Luiz Fernando |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Pretrial detention Proportionality Reasoning Legal Reasoning Discretion. Prisão Cautelar Proporcionalidade Fundamentação Argumentação Jurídica Discricionariedade. |
topic |
Pretrial detention Proportionality Reasoning Legal Reasoning Discretion. Prisão Cautelar Proporcionalidade Fundamentação Argumentação Jurídica Discricionariedade. |
description |
The research seeks to solve the problem of the lack of an adequate model to base the decisions that deal with pretrial detentions in view of its inadequate practical application. It is used as hypothesis an argumentative model based on proportionality and presented in the form of axioms, which would be able to solve the problem of reasoning, because linked to the preservation of fundamental rights. The objective is, then, to establish a model for the foundation of court decisions dealing with precautionary arrests with a view to reducing discretion. To achieve the objective of the study, the deductive method was employed, in addition to the electronic and bibliographic research means. The research took place through general and specific doctrines on the subject, as well as scientific articles. The theoretical framework uses the doctrine of Robert Alexy, of Luigi Ferrajoli, as well as the hermeneutic critique of Lenio Streck's. It is concluded by the necessary use of proportionality from a reading of philosophical hermeneutics by the decision that decrees or maintains pretrial detentions, being always necessary to pay attention to the gravity of the imposed measure and the end that it seeks to protect. Inadequate, unnecessary or extremely serious measures must not be admitted, and the concrete circumstances of the fact must be observed, being the generic and abstract motives inadmissible. |
publishDate |
2020 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-03-29 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/268 10.22197/rbdpp.v6i1.268 |
url |
https://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/268 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.22197/rbdpp.v6i1.268 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/268/214 https://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/268/294 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2020 Luiz Fernando Kazmierczak, Matheus Arcangelo Fedato info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2020 Luiz Fernando Kazmierczak, Matheus Arcangelo Fedato |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf text/xml |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal - IBRASPP |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal - IBRASPP |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Journal of Criminal Procedure; Vol. 6 No. 1 (2020); 483-514 Revista Brasileña de Derecho Procesal Penal; Vol. 6 Núm. 1 (2020); 483-514 Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal; V. 6 N. 1 (2020); 483-514 Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal; v. 6 n. 1 (2020); 483-514 2525-510X 10.22197/rbdpp.v6i1 reponame:Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) instname:Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal (IBRASPP) instacron:IBRASPP |
instname_str |
Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal (IBRASPP) |
instacron_str |
IBRASPP |
institution |
IBRASPP |
reponame_str |
Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) |
collection |
Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) - Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal (IBRASPP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
revista@ibraspp.com.br |
_version_ |
1809281940461715456 |