The “Anticrime” law and the admissibility of investigative evidence:: Reflections based on the conventional fair trial standards
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Revista Eletrônica de Direito Penal e Política Criminal |
Texto Completo: | https://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/redppc/article/view/111859 |
Resumo: | The article aims to analyze the interpretation that the § 3 of article 3-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced by the “Anticrime” Law, is a strict rule of inadmissibility of evidence. The article seeks to answer whether this strict rule of exclusion and prohibition of repeatable investigative evidence is compatible with conventional standards of fair trial. The discussion will start from the premises that the search for truth is the institutional purpose of the criminal procedure and that the right to confrontation, the reason that justifies the exclusion of investigative evidence, has an epistemic function. It will be shown that this interpretation, which considers the imperative exclusion of investigative evidence to be correct, does not observe epistemic rationality since it is not adequate and necessary to achieve the intended ends, which makes it incompatible with the standards of conventional fair trial. |
id |
UFRGS-33_416818a9c9d1a0e9c75d9713833cdf1f |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:seer.ufrgs.br:article/111859 |
network_acronym_str |
UFRGS-33 |
network_name_str |
Revista Eletrônica de Direito Penal e Política Criminal |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
The “Anticrime” law and the admissibility of investigative evidence:: Reflections based on the conventional fair trial standardsA Lei “Anticrime” e a admissibilidade de provas investigativas: : Reflexões com base no justo processo convencionalRegras de exclusão de provasDireito ao confrontoEpistemologiaJusto processo convencionalExclusionary rulesRight to confrontationEpistemologyConventional fair trialThe article aims to analyze the interpretation that the § 3 of article 3-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced by the “Anticrime” Law, is a strict rule of inadmissibility of evidence. The article seeks to answer whether this strict rule of exclusion and prohibition of repeatable investigative evidence is compatible with conventional standards of fair trial. The discussion will start from the premises that the search for truth is the institutional purpose of the criminal procedure and that the right to confrontation, the reason that justifies the exclusion of investigative evidence, has an epistemic function. It will be shown that this interpretation, which considers the imperative exclusion of investigative evidence to be correct, does not observe epistemic rationality since it is not adequate and necessary to achieve the intended ends, which makes it incompatible with the standards of conventional fair trial.O artigo tem por objetivo analisar a interpretação de que o §3º do artigo 3º-C do Código de Processo Penal, introduzido pela Lei “Anticrime”, é uma regra rígida de inadmissibilidade de provas. Busca-se responder se essa regra rígida de exclusão e proibição de uso de elementos investigativos repetíveis é compatível com os parâmetros convencionais utilizados para se reputar devido o processo penal. A discussão partirá das premissas de que a busca da verdade é o objetivo institucional do processo penal e que o direito ao confronto, fundamento que justifica a exclusão das provas investigativas, tem função epistêmica. Demonstrar-se-á que essa interpretação que defende a exclusão imperativa das provas investigativas não observa a racionalidade epistêmica, uma vez que não é adequada e necessária para atingir os fins pretendidos, o que a torna incompatível com a ideia de justo processo convencional. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul2021-07-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionArtigo avaliado por pares (Double blind peer review)application/pdfhttps://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/redppc/article/view/111859Revista Eletrônica de Direito Penal e Política Criminal; Vol. 9 No. 1 (2021); 89 - 120Revista Electrónica de Derecho Penal y Política Criminal; Vol. 9 Núm. 1 (2021); 89 - 120Revista Eletrônica de Direito Penal e Política Criminal; v. 9 n. 1 (2021); 89 - 1202358-19562358-1956reponame:Revista Eletrônica de Direito Penal e Política Criminalinstname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)instacron:UFRGSporhttps://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/redppc/article/view/111859/63887Copyright (c) 2021 Revista Eletrônica de Direito Penal e Política Criminalhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCunha, Vítor Souza2022-08-09T03:35:21Zoai:seer.ufrgs.br:article/111859Revistahttps://seer.ufrgs.br/redppc/PUBhttps://seer.ufrgs.br/redppc/oairedppc@ufrgs.br2358-19562358-1956opendoar:2022-08-09T03:35:21Revista Eletrônica de Direito Penal e Política Criminal - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
The “Anticrime” law and the admissibility of investigative evidence:: Reflections based on the conventional fair trial standards A Lei “Anticrime” e a admissibilidade de provas investigativas: : Reflexões com base no justo processo convencional |
title |
The “Anticrime” law and the admissibility of investigative evidence:: Reflections based on the conventional fair trial standards |
spellingShingle |
The “Anticrime” law and the admissibility of investigative evidence:: Reflections based on the conventional fair trial standards Cunha, Vítor Souza Regras de exclusão de provas Direito ao confronto Epistemologia Justo processo convencional Exclusionary rules Right to confrontation Epistemology Conventional fair trial |
title_short |
The “Anticrime” law and the admissibility of investigative evidence:: Reflections based on the conventional fair trial standards |
title_full |
The “Anticrime” law and the admissibility of investigative evidence:: Reflections based on the conventional fair trial standards |
title_fullStr |
The “Anticrime” law and the admissibility of investigative evidence:: Reflections based on the conventional fair trial standards |
title_full_unstemmed |
The “Anticrime” law and the admissibility of investigative evidence:: Reflections based on the conventional fair trial standards |
title_sort |
The “Anticrime” law and the admissibility of investigative evidence:: Reflections based on the conventional fair trial standards |
author |
Cunha, Vítor Souza |
author_facet |
Cunha, Vítor Souza |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Cunha, Vítor Souza |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Regras de exclusão de provas Direito ao confronto Epistemologia Justo processo convencional Exclusionary rules Right to confrontation Epistemology Conventional fair trial |
topic |
Regras de exclusão de provas Direito ao confronto Epistemologia Justo processo convencional Exclusionary rules Right to confrontation Epistemology Conventional fair trial |
description |
The article aims to analyze the interpretation that the § 3 of article 3-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced by the “Anticrime” Law, is a strict rule of inadmissibility of evidence. The article seeks to answer whether this strict rule of exclusion and prohibition of repeatable investigative evidence is compatible with conventional standards of fair trial. The discussion will start from the premises that the search for truth is the institutional purpose of the criminal procedure and that the right to confrontation, the reason that justifies the exclusion of investigative evidence, has an epistemic function. It will be shown that this interpretation, which considers the imperative exclusion of investigative evidence to be correct, does not observe epistemic rationality since it is not adequate and necessary to achieve the intended ends, which makes it incompatible with the standards of conventional fair trial. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-07-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Artigo avaliado por pares (Double blind peer review) |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/redppc/article/view/111859 |
url |
https://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/redppc/article/view/111859 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/redppc/article/view/111859/63887 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista Eletrônica de Direito Penal e Política Criminal https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista Eletrônica de Direito Penal e Política Criminal https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista Eletrônica de Direito Penal e Política Criminal; Vol. 9 No. 1 (2021); 89 - 120 Revista Electrónica de Derecho Penal y Política Criminal; Vol. 9 Núm. 1 (2021); 89 - 120 Revista Eletrônica de Direito Penal e Política Criminal; v. 9 n. 1 (2021); 89 - 120 2358-1956 2358-1956 reponame:Revista Eletrônica de Direito Penal e Política Criminal instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) instacron:UFRGS |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) |
instacron_str |
UFRGS |
institution |
UFRGS |
reponame_str |
Revista Eletrônica de Direito Penal e Política Criminal |
collection |
Revista Eletrônica de Direito Penal e Política Criminal |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Eletrônica de Direito Penal e Política Criminal - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
redppc@ufrgs.br |
_version_ |
1811812683502059520 |