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

Lei Maria da Penha: da convivência com as práticas do sistema de justiça no submédio do Vale do São Francisco

The inequalities that mark the women’s lives in societies around the world have been the subject of intense discussion by the feminist movement, with developments in questioning about possibilities of full citizenship. In this scenario the Brazilian feminist movement has achieved steadily, in recent decades, an effort to participate in the formulation of the public policy agenda, as well as the realization of demands to institutionalize the legal parameters as regulations for the issue of violence against women. On the grounds of social justice, many discourses are made with a focus on reframing the institutional role of the state in the areas of constitutional law and criminal law. Considering these discourses, proposals were reformulated and the action of the state was resized, what ended in the enactment of Law 11,340 / 2006 (Maria da Penha Law), with a great impact on the Brazilian criminal justice system. Taking this perspective as its starting point, this research is focused on understanding the struggles for access to the legal field regarding the implementation of the Maria da Penha Law. This qualitative and quantitative research analyses the way the social practices and social representations which involve activists of the feminist movement and operators from the justice system are established in Juazeiro/ BA and Petrolina/PE before the institutional reshuffles of the state. As a result, it was revealed that, despite inconsistencies in the performance of the criminal justice system, the positioning of feminist activism is grounded on the assumption.