Economic Analysis of the Rationality of the Collaboration Agreement
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
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/195 |
Resumo: | This article questions whether the criminal collaboration, as on the article 4 from Law nº 12.850/2013, is an economically rational decision to the defendant. In order to that, firstly, will be discussed the essential elements of the collaboration plea agreement, proving that its implantation in Brazilian’s criminal justice system took place in the center of demands for punishment and inefficiency of the traditional investigation methods. Using the methodology of law and economics, this research quarrels the rationality of the decision to collaborate with the investigations. The work recognizes that this decision is not rational under the premises of the neoclassical economy. Thus, by the outlines provided by the behavioural economy, it’s verifiable that this choice is influenced by cognitive biases, branched mostly from the informational asymmetry and the exceeding application of pre-trial detention to distort defendant’s trial projection. In conclusion, the system leads to an irrational use of collaboration plea, that needs to be offset by other legal tools as a mean to induct behaviours. |
id |
IBRASPP-1_bbd476ebc63260a073856597729349ef |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.revista.ibraspp.com.br:article/195 |
network_acronym_str |
IBRASPP-1 |
network_name_str |
Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Economic Analysis of the Rationality of the Collaboration AgreementAnálise Econômica da Racionalidade do Acordo de Colaboração PremiadaPlea agreementRationalityCognitive biasHeuristicInformational asymmetry.Colaboração PremiadaRacionalidadeViés CognitivoHeurísticaAssimetria de Informações.This article questions whether the criminal collaboration, as on the article 4 from Law nº 12.850/2013, is an economically rational decision to the defendant. In order to that, firstly, will be discussed the essential elements of the collaboration plea agreement, proving that its implantation in Brazilian’s criminal justice system took place in the center of demands for punishment and inefficiency of the traditional investigation methods. Using the methodology of law and economics, this research quarrels the rationality of the decision to collaborate with the investigations. The work recognizes that this decision is not rational under the premises of the neoclassical economy. Thus, by the outlines provided by the behavioural economy, it’s verifiable that this choice is influenced by cognitive biases, branched mostly from the informational asymmetry and the exceeding application of pre-trial detention to distort defendant’s trial projection. In conclusion, the system leads to an irrational use of collaboration plea, that needs to be offset by other legal tools as a mean to induct behaviours. Este artigo pretende questionar se o acordo de colaboração premiada, previsto no art. 4º da Lei nº 12.850/2013, é uma decisão economicamente racional sob o ponto de vista do acusado colaborador. Para essa finalidade, serão expostos os elementos constituintes do acordo de colaboração premiada, demonstrando que sua instauração no sistema penal brasileiro ocorreu em um contexto de urgência pela resposta penal e de ineficiência dos instrumentos tradicionais de investigação. Em seguida, será utilizada a metodologia da análise econômica do direito para examinar a racionalidade da decisão do acusado de colaborar com as investigações. O trabalho conclui que a decisão de colaborar com as investigações não constitui escolha racional de acordo com os pressupostos da economia neoclássica. Partindo dos substratos da economia comportamental, verifica-se que a decisão é influenciada por vieses cognitivos causados por assimetria de informações entre acusação e defesa e pela utilização da prisão cautelar como forma de alteração da perspectiva do acusado. Dessa forma, o sistema conduz à utilização irracional da colaboração, que precisa ser equilibrada com outros instrumentos jurídicos indutores de comportamento.Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal - IBRASPP2019-03-26info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/19510.22197/rbdpp.v5i1.195Brazilian Journal of Criminal Procedure; Vol. 5 No. 1 (2019); 469-504Revista Brasileña de Derecho Procesal Penal; Vol. 5 Núm. 1 (2019); 469-504Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal; V. 5 N. 1 (2019); 469-504Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal; v. 5 n. 1 (2019); 469-5042525-510X10.22197/rbdpp.v5i1reponame:Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online)instname:Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal (IBRASPP)instacron:IBRASPPporhttps://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/195/161Copyright (c) 2019 Tiago Kalkmanninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessKalkmann, Tiago2020-07-20T07:42:33Zoai:ojs.revista.ibraspp.com.br:article/195Revistahttps://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPPONGhttps://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/oairevista@ibraspp.com.br2525-510X2359-3881opendoar:2020-07-20T07:42:33Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) - Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal (IBRASPP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Economic Analysis of the Rationality of the Collaboration Agreement Análise Econômica da Racionalidade do Acordo de Colaboração Premiada |
title |
Economic Analysis of the Rationality of the Collaboration Agreement |
spellingShingle |
Economic Analysis of the Rationality of the Collaboration Agreement Kalkmann, Tiago Plea agreement Rationality Cognitive bias Heuristic Informational asymmetry. Colaboração Premiada Racionalidade Viés Cognitivo Heurística Assimetria de Informações. |
title_short |
Economic Analysis of the Rationality of the Collaboration Agreement |
title_full |
Economic Analysis of the Rationality of the Collaboration Agreement |
title_fullStr |
Economic Analysis of the Rationality of the Collaboration Agreement |
title_full_unstemmed |
Economic Analysis of the Rationality of the Collaboration Agreement |
title_sort |
Economic Analysis of the Rationality of the Collaboration Agreement |
author |
Kalkmann, Tiago |
author_facet |
Kalkmann, Tiago |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Kalkmann, Tiago |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Plea agreement Rationality Cognitive bias Heuristic Informational asymmetry. Colaboração Premiada Racionalidade Viés Cognitivo Heurística Assimetria de Informações. |
topic |
Plea agreement Rationality Cognitive bias Heuristic Informational asymmetry. Colaboração Premiada Racionalidade Viés Cognitivo Heurística Assimetria de Informações. |
description |
This article questions whether the criminal collaboration, as on the article 4 from Law nº 12.850/2013, is an economically rational decision to the defendant. In order to that, firstly, will be discussed the essential elements of the collaboration plea agreement, proving that its implantation in Brazilian’s criminal justice system took place in the center of demands for punishment and inefficiency of the traditional investigation methods. Using the methodology of law and economics, this research quarrels the rationality of the decision to collaborate with the investigations. The work recognizes that this decision is not rational under the premises of the neoclassical economy. Thus, by the outlines provided by the behavioural economy, it’s verifiable that this choice is influenced by cognitive biases, branched mostly from the informational asymmetry and the exceeding application of pre-trial detention to distort defendant’s trial projection. In conclusion, the system leads to an irrational use of collaboration plea, that needs to be offset by other legal tools as a mean to induct behaviours. |
publishDate |
2019 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2019-03-26 |
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/195 10.22197/rbdpp.v5i1.195 |
url |
https://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/195 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.22197/rbdpp.v5i1.195 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/195/161 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2019 Tiago Kalkmann info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2019 Tiago Kalkmann |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
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. 5 No. 1 (2019); 469-504 Revista Brasileña de Derecho Procesal Penal; Vol. 5 Núm. 1 (2019); 469-504 Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal; V. 5 N. 1 (2019); 469-504 Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal; v. 5 n. 1 (2019); 469-504 2525-510X 10.22197/rbdpp.v5i1 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_ |
1809281940361052160 |