Policy judicialization and democracy: the decriminalization of abortion until the third month of pregnancy
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Scientia Iuris (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/article/view/43011 |
Resumo: | It investigates, in a descriptive and exploratory way, whether judicial decisions on sensitive and controversial issues compromise democracy and, if so, what are the reasons for democracy’s weakening condition. Bibliographic and documentary research on themes, such as abortion, judicialization of politics and its effects on democracy are examined. From an empirical standpoint, the object of study is Habeas Corpus nº 124.306/2016, specifically Minister Luís Roberto Barroso vote in the Brazilian Federal Court of Justice. This paper intends to obtain a pure and qualitative result on the theme, from the perspective that excessive judicialization of politics subverts the Constitution and disrespects popular sovereignty, since judges, not elected by the people, interpret, and rely on principles to make often discretionary and arbitrary decisions. This paper concludes that the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, when granting the order in Habeas Corpus no. 124.306/2016, decriminalized a conduct objectively established by the Brazilian Criminal Code and disrespected a fundamental right, the right to life, protected by the Brazilian Federal Constitution. Such an act compromises the rules and legitimacy of democracy. Moreover, this study suggests that there needs to be greater dialogue between the three branches of government and more participation of the people to tackle complex questions, which depend on popular debate in order to be properly legitimized. |
id |
UEL-6_4113b7f6166d1adb54d5cdb12de23907 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/43011 |
network_acronym_str |
UEL-6 |
network_name_str |
Scientia Iuris (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Policy judicialization and democracy: the decriminalization of abortion until the third month of pregnancyJudicialização da política e democracia: a descriminalização do aborto até o terceiro mês de gestaçãoJudicialization of politicsDemocracyHabeas Corpus nº 124.306/2016Federal Court of JusticeJudicialização da políticaDemocraciaHabeas Corpus nº 124.306/2016Supremo Tribunal FederalIt investigates, in a descriptive and exploratory way, whether judicial decisions on sensitive and controversial issues compromise democracy and, if so, what are the reasons for democracy’s weakening condition. Bibliographic and documentary research on themes, such as abortion, judicialization of politics and its effects on democracy are examined. From an empirical standpoint, the object of study is Habeas Corpus nº 124.306/2016, specifically Minister Luís Roberto Barroso vote in the Brazilian Federal Court of Justice. This paper intends to obtain a pure and qualitative result on the theme, from the perspective that excessive judicialization of politics subverts the Constitution and disrespects popular sovereignty, since judges, not elected by the people, interpret, and rely on principles to make often discretionary and arbitrary decisions. This paper concludes that the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, when granting the order in Habeas Corpus no. 124.306/2016, decriminalized a conduct objectively established by the Brazilian Criminal Code and disrespected a fundamental right, the right to life, protected by the Brazilian Federal Constitution. Such an act compromises the rules and legitimacy of democracy. Moreover, this study suggests that there needs to be greater dialogue between the three branches of government and more participation of the people to tackle complex questions, which depend on popular debate in order to be properly legitimized.Investiga, de maneira descritiva e exploratória, se decisões judiciais acerca de temas sensíveis e polêmicos, no meio social, comprometem a democracia e, em caso positivo, quais as razões do enfraquecimento democrático. Recorre-se às pesquisas bibliográfica e documental sobre os temas aborto, judicialização da política e os reflexos desta na democracia. Mediante demanda empírica, o objeto de estudo é a ordem concedida no Habeas Corpus nº 124.306/2016, baseada no voto-vista do ministro Luís Roberto Barroso, do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Pretende-se obter resultado puro e qualitativo acerca da temática, sob a perspectiva de que o excesso de judicialização da política subverte a Constituição e desrespeita a soberania popular, já que juízes, não eleitos pelo voto, interpretam e se auxiliam de princípios para proferirem, muitas vezes, decisões discricionárias e arbitrárias. Conclui-se que o Supremo Tribunal Federal, ao conceder a ordem no Habeas Corpus nº 124.306/2016, descriminalizou conduta prevista, objetivamente, no Código Penal, como crime e desrespeitou direito individual fundamental, o direito à vida, contido na Constituição Federal, com um considerável comprometimento da democracia. Sugerem-se maior diálogo entre os poderes e mais participação do povo no enfrentamento de aspectos complexos, cujas decisões dependem do debate popular para que se legitimem.Universidade Estadual de Londrina2021-03-31info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionArtigo avaliado pelos Paresapplication/pdfhttps://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/article/view/4301110.5433/2178-8189.2021v25n1p178Scientia Iuris; v. 25 n. 1 (2021); 178-1992178-81891415-6490reponame:Scientia Iuris (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)instacron:UELporhttps://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/article/view/43011/29344Copyright (c) 2021 Scientia Iurisinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCunha, Jânio Pereira daMoreira, Roberta Pessoa2021-04-09T12:51:39Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/43011Revistahttps://www.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iurisPUBhttps://www.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/oairevistamdireito@uel.br2178-81891415-6490opendoar:2021-04-09T12:51:39Scientia Iuris (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Policy judicialization and democracy: the decriminalization of abortion until the third month of pregnancy Judicialização da política e democracia: a descriminalização do aborto até o terceiro mês de gestação |
title |
Policy judicialization and democracy: the decriminalization of abortion until the third month of pregnancy |
spellingShingle |
Policy judicialization and democracy: the decriminalization of abortion until the third month of pregnancy Cunha, Jânio Pereira da Judicialization of politics Democracy Habeas Corpus nº 124.306/2016 Federal Court of Justice Judicialização da política Democracia Habeas Corpus nº 124.306/2016 Supremo Tribunal Federal |
title_short |
Policy judicialization and democracy: the decriminalization of abortion until the third month of pregnancy |
title_full |
Policy judicialization and democracy: the decriminalization of abortion until the third month of pregnancy |
title_fullStr |
Policy judicialization and democracy: the decriminalization of abortion until the third month of pregnancy |
title_full_unstemmed |
Policy judicialization and democracy: the decriminalization of abortion until the third month of pregnancy |
title_sort |
Policy judicialization and democracy: the decriminalization of abortion until the third month of pregnancy |
author |
Cunha, Jânio Pereira da |
author_facet |
Cunha, Jânio Pereira da Moreira, Roberta Pessoa |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Moreira, Roberta Pessoa |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Cunha, Jânio Pereira da Moreira, Roberta Pessoa |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Judicialization of politics Democracy Habeas Corpus nº 124.306/2016 Federal Court of Justice Judicialização da política Democracia Habeas Corpus nº 124.306/2016 Supremo Tribunal Federal |
topic |
Judicialization of politics Democracy Habeas Corpus nº 124.306/2016 Federal Court of Justice Judicialização da política Democracia Habeas Corpus nº 124.306/2016 Supremo Tribunal Federal |
description |
It investigates, in a descriptive and exploratory way, whether judicial decisions on sensitive and controversial issues compromise democracy and, if so, what are the reasons for democracy’s weakening condition. Bibliographic and documentary research on themes, such as abortion, judicialization of politics and its effects on democracy are examined. From an empirical standpoint, the object of study is Habeas Corpus nº 124.306/2016, specifically Minister Luís Roberto Barroso vote in the Brazilian Federal Court of Justice. This paper intends to obtain a pure and qualitative result on the theme, from the perspective that excessive judicialization of politics subverts the Constitution and disrespects popular sovereignty, since judges, not elected by the people, interpret, and rely on principles to make often discretionary and arbitrary decisions. This paper concludes that the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, when granting the order in Habeas Corpus no. 124.306/2016, decriminalized a conduct objectively established by the Brazilian Criminal Code and disrespected a fundamental right, the right to life, protected by the Brazilian Federal Constitution. Such an act compromises the rules and legitimacy of democracy. Moreover, this study suggests that there needs to be greater dialogue between the three branches of government and more participation of the people to tackle complex questions, which depend on popular debate in order to be properly legitimized. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-03-31 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Artigo avaliado pelos Pares |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/article/view/43011 10.5433/2178-8189.2021v25n1p178 |
url |
https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/article/view/43011 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.5433/2178-8189.2021v25n1p178 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/article/view/43011/29344 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Scientia Iuris info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Scientia Iuris |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual de Londrina |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual de Londrina |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Scientia Iuris; v. 25 n. 1 (2021); 178-199 2178-8189 1415-6490 reponame:Scientia Iuris (Online) instname:Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL) instacron:UEL |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL) |
instacron_str |
UEL |
institution |
UEL |
reponame_str |
Scientia Iuris (Online) |
collection |
Scientia Iuris (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Scientia Iuris (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
revistamdireito@uel.br |
_version_ |
1799306016186171392 |