A responsabilização criminal no estado democrático de direito: o equilíbrio entre a efetividade e os limites da pretensão punitiva da sociedade

This paper analyzes the relationship between fundamental rights and the exercise of the claim punitive society in a democratic state. It starts with the premise that there are fundamental rights that limit and determine the validity of all forms of manifestation of the claim punitive society (legislating, investigative, adjudicative or ministerial) and there are others that require the state the right exercise, fast and effective of these activities. Travels to history in order to see that the first meaning of these rights was built between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, after all a history of abuses committed by state agents in the exercise of criminal justice, and positively valued in the declarations of human rights and proclaimed in the constitutions after the American and French Revolutions, while the second meaning has been assigned between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when, because of the serious social problems generated largely by absenteeism state, it was noted that in addition to subjective rights the individual against the state, fundamental rights are also objective values, which trigger an order directed the state to protect them against the action of the offending individuals themselves (duty to protect), the mission of which the State seeks to discharge, among other means, through the issue of legal rules typifying the behavior detrimental to such rights, subject to penalties, and the concrete actions of public institutions created by the Constitution to operate penal law. Under this double bias, it is argued that the rule violates the Constitution in the exercise of the claim punitive society as much as by excess malfere fundamental rights that limit, as when it allows facts wrong by offending fundamental rights, remain unpunished either by inaction or by insufficient measures taken abstractly or concretely provided

Efetivação da garantia de defesa no estado constitucional de direito: colisão entre o poder punitivo e garantia de defesa

The domination of the violence for the Rule of law awakened a tension between the practice of the punitive power and the right to counsel. However, throughout the recent history of the Criminal law, this shock of forces has been determined for the punitive power. In this perspective, the present work intends to submit the guarantee of defense to a critical judgment, in search to conciliate its content to the Constitutional State of Right. For in such a way, it will be necessary to recognize the disequilibrium of the situation, but without considering the superiority of any of these elements. The State in such a way must fulfill the function to punish the culprits as to acquit the innocents. Despite the law is far from obtaining a harmonious speech, it is necessary that the defense guarantee coexists the punitive power as part of an only public interest, which is, to make criminal justice. In such a way, the existence of a sustainable balance between the punitive power and the guarantee of defense depend on the minimum interference of Criminal law and, also, of the judicial position in the concrete case. The present work faces, therefore, the moment of crisis of the Criminal law, consolidated with the advent of a new way of thinking according to the procedural guarantees, that will demand the overcoming of the old concepts. The Constitutional State of Right not only constitutes an efectiveness of the regime of the right to counsel, but in a similar way it searchs to accomplish the right of action and criminal justice as a whole. Knowing that the philosophy of the language raises doubts on the certainty, the truth and the judgement, it is imposed to understand that the defense guarantee is no more about a simple idea, but, in the crooked ways of the communication, we intend to find what the judge s function is when he faces this new reality

O Tratamento com a fluoxetina (mas não com outros farmacos antidepressivo e ansioíiticos) reverte o déficit de memória aversiva causado por estresse agudo de contenção em camundongos

The physiologist H. Selye defined stress as the nonspecific response of the body to any factors that endanger homeostasis (balance of internal environment) of the individual. These factors, agents stressors, are able to activate the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal (HPA) axis, thus resulting in the physiological responses to stress by the release of glucocorticoids that leads to psychophysiological changes, including effects on cognitive functions such as learning and memory. When this axis is acutely stimulated occurs a repertoire of behavioral and physiological changes can be adaptive to the individual. Notwithstanding, when the HPA axis is chronically stimulated, changes may favor the development of, such as anxiety disorders. Some drugs used in the clinic for the treatment of anxiety disorders these can exert effects on cognitive function, on the HPA axis and on the anxiety. In this context, the aim of our study was to investigate the effects of administration i.p. acute of diazepam (DZP, 2 mg/kg), buspirone (BUS, 3 mg/kg), mirtazapine (MIR, 10 mg/kg) and fluoxetine (FLU, 10 mg/kg) in male mice submitted to acute restraint stress, and evaluated using plus-maze discriminative avoidance task (PMDAT), which simultaneously evaluates parameters such as learning, memory and anxiety. Our results demonstrated that (1) the administration of DZP and BUS, but not FLU, promoted anxiolytic effects in animals; (2) administration mirtazapine caused sedative effect to animals; (3) in the training session, the animals treated with BUS, MIR and FLU learned the task, on the other hand DZP group showed impairment in learning; (4) in the test session, animals treated with DZP, BUS, and MIR showed deficits in relation to discrimination between the enclosed arms, aversive versus non-aversive arm, demonstrating an impairment in memory, however, animals treated with FLU showed no interference in the retrieval of this memory; (5) acute stress did not interfere in locomotor activity, anxiety, or learning on the learning task, but induced impairment in retrieval memory, and the group treated with FLU did not demonstrated this deficit of memory . These results suggest that acute administration of drugs with anxiolytic and antidepressant activity does not interfere with the learning process this aversive task, but impair its retrieval, as well as the acute restraint stress. However, the antidepressant fluoxetine was able to reverse memory deficits promoted by acute stress, which may suggest that modulation, even acutely serotonergic neurotransmission, by selectively inhibiting the reuptake of this neurotransmitter, interferes on the process of retrieval of an aversive memory