O sistema acusatório e a imparcialidade do julgador como condição para um julgamento justo: uma abordagem a partir do HC nº 164.493/PR
Carregando...
Data
2021
Tipo de documento
Dissertação
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Área do conhecimento
Ciências Sociais Aplicadas
Modalidade de acesso
Acesso aberto
Editora
Autores
Nascimento, Joelson do Rosário
Orientador
Nicolitt, André Luiz
Coorientador
Resumo
Pacificar conflitos, seja de natureza privada ou pública, sempre foi tarefa das mais árduas para todas as civilizações e comunidades humanas. Os métodos outrora utilizados sempre foram postos à crítica e o processo penal vem se modernizando no Brasil desde a edição do Código de Processo Criminal de 1832, não obstante o núcleo dogmático daquele (processo penal) não esteja sintonizado com a matriz constitucional de 1998. No tocante à temática desenvolvida nessa pesquisa, seu objetivo visa analisar em que medida a imparcialidade do julgador, presente no atual Código de Processo Penal e demais legislações em virtude do devido processo legal, têm contribuído para influenciar diretamente no resultado de um julgamento justo, ou, se não raro, a sua ausência tem contribuído com decisões injustas em detrimento do acusado. Ante a existência desse quadro, o presente trabalho traz problematizações doutrinárias, filosóficas e legislativas acerca da imparcialidade no processo penal, situando-o a partir dos antigos métodos de pacificação dos conflitos, procurando demonstrar como agiam os julgadores na solução das controvérsias públicas e/ou privadas até chegar aos nossos dias. Por conseguinte, recorreu-se à doutrina garantista de Luigi Ferrajoli, bem como de outros pensadores e doutrinadores da seara jurídica que adotam como linha de raciocínio o garantismo do filósofo italiano como fundamento para alinhar a sistemática do processo penal à tutela dos bens jurídicos constitucionalmente protegidos, principalmente no que diz respeito ao problema da imparcialidade do julgador em sua pronúncia quando da decisão judicial. A justiça da decisão em muito depende daquele que é o responsável pela condução do procedimento. Indaga-se se os poderes instrutórios conferidos aos magistrados, seja determinando a instauração de inquérito policial a partir do conhecimento da existência de um delito, seja requisitando livremente testemunhas, seja determinando a produção das provas, seja agindo de forma suspeita, seja conduzindo o processo mesmo impedido legalmente não compromete a finalidade do sistema acusatório, que deve ser conduzido pela paridade de armas e pelo contraditório. O devido processo legal assegurado no processo penal ante algumas incompatibilidades por guardar simetria com o sistema inquisitório deve dar lugar ao devido processo constitucional como instrumento de garantia assegurado pela Constituição/88. A persecução criminal não pode servir ao Estado como mecanismo de violação dos direitos humanos já conquistados desde o século XVIII. A conclusão proposta é que em sintonia com a instituição do juiz das garantias adotado pela Lei 13.964 de 24 de dezembro de 2019 efetue-se mudanças na sistemática processual penal e nas legislações que afastem o julgador daquelas tarefas probatórias que podem ser livremente atribuídas ao Ministério Público e à Autoridade Judiciária, levando o sistema acusatório a uma depuração dos elementos próprios do sistema inquisitório, sem, contudo, reduzir o julgador a mero expectador passivo e inerte.
Pacifying conflicts, whether of a private or public nature, has always been the most arduous task for all civilizations and human communities. The methods used in the past have always been criticized and the criminal process has been modernized in Brazil since the edition of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1832, although the dogmatic nucleus of that (criminal process) is not in line with the constitutional matrix of 1998. With regard to the theme developed in this research, its objective is to analyze the extent to which the judge's impartiality, present in the current Code of Criminal Procedure and other laws due to due legal process, have contributed to directly influence the outcome of a fair trial, or, if not rarely, his absence has contributed to unfair decisions to the detriment of the accused. Given the existence of this framework, the present work brings doctrinal, philosophical and legislative problematizations about impartiality in the criminal process, situating it from the old methods of pacifying conflicts, trying to demonstrate how the judges acted in the solution of public controversies and/or until they reach our days. Therefore, Luigi Ferrajoli's guarantor doctrine was used, as well as other legal thinkers and doctrines who adopt the Italian philosopher's guarantee as a line of reasoning as a basis for aligning the system of criminal proceedings with the protection of constitutionally protected legal assets. , especially with regard to the problem of the judge's impartiality in his pronouncement when the court ruled. The fairness of the decision largely depends on who is responsible for conducting the procedure. It is questioned whether the instructive powers conferred on magistrates, whether determining the initiation of a police inquiry based on the knowledge of the existence of a crime, whether freely requesting witnesses, or determining the production of evidence, or acting in a suspicious manner, or conducting the process even if legally impeded, it does not compromise the purpose of the accusatory system, which must be driven by parity of arms and contradiction. The due legal process ensured in the criminal process in the face of some incompatibilities for keeping symmetry with the inquisitorial system must give rise to due constitutional process as a guarantee instrument ensured by the Constitution / 88. Criminal prosecution cannot serve the State as a mechanism for violating human rights that has been conquered since the 18th century. The proposed conclusion is that in line with the institution of the guarantor judge adopted by Law 13,964 of December 24, 2019, changes are made to the criminal procedural system and the laws that take the judge away from those evidential tasks that can be freely attributed to the Public Prosecutor's Office. and to the Judiciary Authority, taking the accusatory system to a purification of the elements proper to the inquisitorial system, without, however, reducing the judge to a mere passive and inert spectator.
Pacifying conflicts, whether of a private or public nature, has always been the most arduous task for all civilizations and human communities. The methods used in the past have always been criticized and the criminal process has been modernized in Brazil since the edition of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1832, although the dogmatic nucleus of that (criminal process) is not in line with the constitutional matrix of 1998. With regard to the theme developed in this research, its objective is to analyze the extent to which the judge's impartiality, present in the current Code of Criminal Procedure and other laws due to due legal process, have contributed to directly influence the outcome of a fair trial, or, if not rarely, his absence has contributed to unfair decisions to the detriment of the accused. Given the existence of this framework, the present work brings doctrinal, philosophical and legislative problematizations about impartiality in the criminal process, situating it from the old methods of pacifying conflicts, trying to demonstrate how the judges acted in the solution of public controversies and/or until they reach our days. Therefore, Luigi Ferrajoli's guarantor doctrine was used, as well as other legal thinkers and doctrines who adopt the Italian philosopher's guarantee as a line of reasoning as a basis for aligning the system of criminal proceedings with the protection of constitutionally protected legal assets. , especially with regard to the problem of the judge's impartiality in his pronouncement when the court ruled. The fairness of the decision largely depends on who is responsible for conducting the procedure. It is questioned whether the instructive powers conferred on magistrates, whether determining the initiation of a police inquiry based on the knowledge of the existence of a crime, whether freely requesting witnesses, or determining the production of evidence, or acting in a suspicious manner, or conducting the process even if legally impeded, it does not compromise the purpose of the accusatory system, which must be driven by parity of arms and contradiction. The due legal process ensured in the criminal process in the face of some incompatibilities for keeping symmetry with the inquisitorial system must give rise to due constitutional process as a guarantee instrument ensured by the Constitution / 88. Criminal prosecution cannot serve the State as a mechanism for violating human rights that has been conquered since the 18th century. The proposed conclusion is that in line with the institution of the guarantor judge adopted by Law 13,964 of December 24, 2019, changes are made to the criminal procedural system and the laws that take the judge away from those evidential tasks that can be freely attributed to the Public Prosecutor's Office. and to the Judiciary Authority, taking the accusatory system to a purification of the elements proper to the inquisitorial system, without, however, reducing the judge to a mere passive and inert spectator.
Palavras-chave
Imparcialidade do julgador, Sistema acusatório, Sistema inquisitório, Processo penal, Devido processo legal, Constitucionalização do processo