Estratégias retórico-argumentativas nas decisões do STF a respeito da execução antecipada da pena criminal

• Autor(a) principal: Conceição, Antonio Marcos
• Data de Publicação: 2024
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_SP
• Texto Completo: https://repositorio.pucsp.br/jspui/handle/handle/41214
• topic: CNPQ::LINGUISTICA, LETRAS E ARTES::LETRAS::LINGUA PORTUGUESA; Discurso jurídico; Execução antecipada da pena criminal; Retórica; Argumentação; Legal discourse; Early execution of criminal penalties; Rhetoric; Argumentation

The present study examines the decision-making legal discourse expressed through language. Legal interpretation is conducted through legal syllogisms based on dialectical reasoning, as well as legal or personal presumptions stemming from sociohistorical, cultural formations, and the opinions, beliefs, and ideologies of the judges. In Brazilian criminal law, the presumption of innocence prevails as a constitutional guarantee, making the anticipation of criminal execution controversial. The general objective of this study is to examine how arguments reveal the beliefs, values, and opinions – doxa - of judges. Specific objectives are: 1 – Identify the types of arguments and rhetorical strategies employed in justifying decisions of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) found in the corpus of analysis; 2 – Analyze and interpret how ethos, pathos, and logos are presented and expressed in the discourse as opinions, beliefs, and values in the decisions of the ministers of the STF; 3 – Analyze and interpret how elements of doxa - gathered from commonplaces - transform into endoxa based on societal beliefs and values. The methodology employed consists of bibliographic study and rhetorical analysis. The corpus of analysis comprises three decisions of the Supreme Federal Court rendered in the years 2009, 2016, and 2019 regarding the early execution of criminal penalties, which evidenced the arguments and use of logos, ethos, and pathos in the texts of the opinions, imbued with subjectivity, expressing the judges' own opinions and the doxa of part of the general audience, transmuted into endoxa when enunciated by the judge. The theoretical framework encompasses studies developed by Aristotle (2005), Ferreira (2010), Meyer (1993), Perelman (1996; 1998), Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (2019), Reboul (2004), Tringali (2013), and van Dijk (1999), regarding Rhetoric, argumentation, legal logic, ideology, and rhetorical analysis employed as a critical methodology for understanding the internal and external, constructive and referential levels of discourse, revealing that, in addition to technical or extrinsic evidence external to the discourse, the rapporteurs employed intrinsic evidence such as logos, ethos, and pathos, inherent to discourse. It was demonstrated that the rhetorical-argumentative strategies used to persuade and convince the audience of the legal rationality of decisions reveal the personal and social beliefs, opinions, and ideologies adopted by the judges