Pretrial detention, reasoning and proportionality: a proposal for the justification of judicial decisions

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Arcangelo Fedato, Matheus
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Kazmierczak, Luiz Fernando
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