Search

Resumo A Lei nº 13.769/2018, que altera o Código de Processo Penal, regula a prisão domiciliar da mulher gestante ou que for mãe ou responsável por crianças ou pessoas com deficiência. Esta pesquisa foi dedicada a observar a construção do sentido jurídico de situação excepcionalíssima por meio de Habeas Corpus (HC) que requereram a prisão domiciliar de gestantes e mães presas com filhos menores de 12 anos. Essa delimitação levou a termos por corpora 122 decisões do Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) e 3 do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), todas prolatadas entre 20 de dezembro de 2018 a 19 de dezembro de 2019, primeiro ano de vigência da Lei nº 13.769/2018. As decisões foram coletadas dos sítios eletrônicos do STJ e do STF, usando por verbetes de busca: “13.769”, “situação e excepcionalíssima”, “preventiva pela domiciliar” e “prisão domiciliar”. Os dados foram lançados em planilha de Excel e analisados sob a perspectiva teórico-metodológica da comunicativação. A análise tratou dos elementos metodológicos aplicados em pesquisa empírica com decisão jurídica, da construção de sentido jurídico e da autoria, quando o relator, o voto, a unanimidade foram tomados, não como transmissores de informações e decisões, mas como referentes de enunciados. A pesquisa viabilizou reflexões que indicam a necessidade de se promover um afastamento da lógica causal e a aplicação da lógica circular reflexiva, como propõe a perspectiva comunicativacionista, além da impossibilidade de pesquisa empírica com decisão jurídica se não transdisciplinar. Quanto ao sentido jurídico, observamos que não cabe falar em sentido fixado, mas sim em processo constante de construção, reconstrução, desconstrução de sentido, é o que observamos ao constatar que os três argumentos (tráfico de drogas exercido na residência, descumprimento de prisão domiciliar anterior e participação em organização criminosa) que impulsionam a construção de sentido de situação excepcionalíssima não estão contidos no texto legal, nem em qualquer precedente judicial, bem como que eles foram aplicados, não aplicados e reaplicados. Por fim, ao observar que um mesmo ministro, numa mesma sessão, quando é relator vota pela concessão da prisão domiciliar e quanto não é relator vota contrário a ela, consideramos que não cabe manter a autoria como se responsabilidade por estabelecer sentido, antes, o sentido jurídico de algo se faz e se desfaz devido à comunicação jurídica mesma, não devido ao/à autor/a. A pesquisa, com essas contribuições, revela quão importante e necessário se faz desenvolver reflexões metodológicas e epistemológicas sobre pesquisa com decisão jurídica. Abstract Law nº 13.769/2018, upon altering the Code of Criminal Procedure, regulates house arrest for pregnant women or for mothers responsible for children or the disabled. This research was dedicated to observing the construction of juridical meaning in the context of a very exceptional situation by way of Habeas Corpus (HC) in the appeal for house arrest in cases of pregnancy and imprisoned mothers with children less than 12 years of age. This demarcation has led us to a set of 122 decisions by the Supreme Justice Tribunal (STJ) and 3 by the Supreme Federal Court (STF), all sentencing having occurred between December 20, 2018 and December 19, 2019, representing the first year of validity for Law nº 13.769/2018. The decisions were collected from the electronic sites of the STJ and STF, using the following entries for searching: “13.769”, “situation” and “very exceptional”, “remand” and “house arrest”. The data was distributed onto an Excel spreadsheet and analyzed under the theoretical-methodological perspective of communicativation. The analysis treated methodological elements applied in empirical research on sentencing and the construction of juridical meaning and authorship, where rapporteur, vote and unanimity were not taken as transmitters of information and decisions, but as pertaining to wordings. The study made viable reflections that indicate the necessity for distancing from causal logic, at the same time promoting the application of reflexive circular logic, as proposed by the communicativationist perspective. What one stresses here is the impossibility of empirical research on juridical decision without transdisciplinary reflection. As for juridical meaning, we observe that it is not suited to a fixed meaning, but rather a constant process of construction, reconstruction and deconstruction of meaning. Observation reveals that three deliberations (drug trafficking at the residence, noncompliance with previous house arrest and participation in organized crime), having induced the construction of meaning in the direction of a very exceptional situation, are not contained in the legal text, nor in any judicial precedent, independent of their first-time application, non-application or reapplication. Finally, as a result of observing that within the same proceedings the same minister, whilst rapporteur votes for house arrest and whilst not rapporteur votes against it, we consider that it is not fitting to maintain authorship as though it would be responsible for the establishment of meaning. Preceding this, the juridical meaning of something is made and unmade due to juridical communication itself, not due to the author. The study, with these contributions, reveals how important and necessary it is to develop methodological and epistemological reflections about studies on juridical decision.

For over a century, changes have been implemented in the way the evidence of adult and child sexual assault complainants is received during the common-law adversarial trial process. Could the fact that reforms have rarely affected the way information is gathered at the initial stages of investigation be a reason why legal systems still struggle with prosecuting sexual offences, but particularly those against children? An abundance of research demonstrates how question types influence the accuracy and detail of reported information. Few studies, however, have focused on the (downstream) impact on legal decisions. This paper begins with a brief overview of reforms to the information-gathering process across the twentieth century that indicate how fraught the issue of information gathering has been; it then reviews contemporary information-gathering strategies and proposes reforms to better align contemporary procedures with sound evidence-based practice. We argue that decision makers, including police, lawyers, clinical and forensic practitioners and judiciary need to better understand the science to bring about overdue change.

We discuss the solution proposed by Yaroslav Slinin to the dispute between Protagoras and Euathlus over tuition fee. According to an ancient anecdote, Protagoras taught rhetoric to Euathlus, and Euathlus promised to pay for the training after he won his first case in court. Upon completion of his studies, Euathlus did not participate in court cases, and after much waiting for payment, Protagoras went to court, hoping that if the claim was satisfied, then Euathlus would pay by court order, and if rejected, then by agreement as the winner of the court. Euathlus objected that in the first case he would not pay according to the contract, and in the second, according to the verdict of the court. Slinin suggests that Euathlus was simply unlucky in courts, but there was no antagonism between Protagoras and Euathlus. Their joint decision to go to court was aimed at helping Protagoras to get paid quickly, and Euathlus to pay off his teacher without losing face. We consider a thought experiment in which Plato, Aristotle and Slinin act as judges in this lawsuit, and show why Plato would postpone the case, Aristotle would satisfy the claim, and Slinin would be satisfied with any decision other than postponing the case, so he would side with Aristotle., Обсуждается предложенное Я. А. Слининым решение спора Протагора и Эватла об оплате обучения. Согласно античному анекдоту, Протагор обучил Эватла красноречию, а Эватл обещал оплатить обучение после того, как выиграет свое первое дело в суде. По завершении обучения Эватл не стал участвовать в судебных делах, и Протагор, не дождавшись оплаты, обратился в суд, рассчитывая, что если иск удовлетворят, то Эватл заплатит по решению суда, а если отклонят, то по договору как выигравший суд. Эватл возражал, что в первом случае не станет платить по договору, а во втором — согласно вердикту суда. Я. А. Слинин предполагает, что Эватлу просто не везло в судах, но между Протагором и Эватлом не было антагонизма. Их совместное решение обратиться в суд было нацелено помочь Протагору побыстрее получить плату, а Эватлу — расплатиться с учителем без потери лица. Мы рассматриваем мысленный эксперимент, в котором Платон, Аристотель и Я. А. Слинин выступают судьями в этой тяжбе, и показываем, почему Платон отложил бы дело, Аристотель удовлетворил бы иск, а Я. А. Слинина устроило бы любое решение, кроме откладывания дела, поэтому он присоединился бы к Аристотелю.

La “objetividad” y “neutralidad” de la ciencia pueden conducir a la discriminación y a la violación de derechos fundamentales de las personas. Para evitarlo, es necesario respetar algunos principios en el uso de la ciencia como base de decisiones de relevancia jurídica, como emerge en el caso de la genética forense y de la inteligencia artificial.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, this study examined the level of knowledge and compliance of Malaysian Muslims with the legal decision to distance each prayer by one meter. It is well known in Islam that praying near a congregation (jemaah) is encouraged, but Malaysia's muftis have decided to add a distance of one meter between the prayers to prevent Covid-19 from being transmitted. A questionnaire survey of 560 online respondents was conducted. The data were descriptively analysed to determine the level of knowledge and compliance with the decision. The results show that Malaysian Muslims' level of knowledge and compliance on this issue is very satisfactory.

DOI: 10.1590/2179-8966/2022/62107.Resumo A Lei nº 13.769/2018, que altera do Código de Processo Penal, regula a prisão domiciliar da mulher gestante ou que for mãe ou responsável por crianças ou pessoas com deficiência. Esta pesquisa foi dedicada a observar a construção do sentido jurídico de situação excepcionalíssima por meio de Habeas Corpus (HC) que requereram a prisão domiciliar de gestantes e mães presas com filhos menores de 12 anos. Essa delimitação levou a termos por corpora 122 decisões do Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) e 3 do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), todas prolatadas entre 20 de dezembro de 2018 a 19 de dezembro de 2019, primeiro ano de vigência da Lei nº 13.769/2018. As decisões foram coletadas dos sítios eletrônicos do STJ e do STF, usando por verbetes de busca: “13.769”, “situação e excepcionalíssima”, “preventiva pela domiciliar” e “prisão domiciliar”. Os dados foram lançados em planilha de Excel e analisados sob a perspectiva teórico-metodológica da comunicativação. A análise tratou dos elementos metodológicos aplicados em pesquisa empírica com decisão jurídica, da construção de sentido jurídico e da autoria, quando o relator, o voto, a unanimidade foram tomados, não como transmissores de informações e decisões, mas como referentes de enunciados. A pesquisa viabilizou reflexões que indicam a necessidade de se promover um afastamento da lógica causal e a aplicação da lógica circular reflexiva, como propõe a perspectiva comunicativacionista, além da impossibilidade de pesquisa empírica com decisão jurídica se não transdisciplinar. Quanto ao sentido jurídico, observamos que não cabe falar em sentido fixado, mas sim em processo constante de construção, reconstrução, desconstrução de sentido, é o que observamos ao constatar que os três argumentos (tráfico de drogas exercido na residência, descumprimento de prisão domiciliar anterior e participação em organização criminosa) que impulsionam a construção de sentido de situação excepcionalíssima não estão contidos no texto legal, nem em qualquer precedente judicial, bem como que eles foram aplicados, não aplicados e reaplicados. Por fim, ao observar que um mesmo ministro, numa mesma sessão, quando é relator vota pela concessão da prisão domiciliar e quanto não é relator vota contrário a ela, consideramos que não cabe manter a autoria como se responsabilidade por estabelecer sentido, antes, o sentido jurídico de algo se faz e se desfaz devido à comunicação jurídica mesma, não devido ao/à autor/a. A pesquisa, com essas contribuições, revela quão importante e necessário se faz desenvolver reflexões metodológicas e epistemológicas sobre pesquisa com decisão jurídica.Palavras-chave: Encarceramento feminino; Prisão domiciliar; Decisão jurídica; Teoria dos sistemas; Comunicativação.Abstract Law nº 13.769/2018, upon altering the Code of Criminal Procedure, regulates house arrest for pregnant women or for mothers responsible for children or the disabled. This research was dedicated to observing the construction of juridical meaning in the context of a very exceptional situation by way of Habeas Corpus (HC) in the appeal for house arrest in cases of pregnancy and imprisoned mothers with children less than 12 years of age. This demarcation has led us to a set of 122 decisions by the Supreme Justice Tribunal (STJ) and 3 by the Supreme Federal Court (STF), all sentencing having occurred between December 20, 2018 and December 19, 2019, representing the first year of validity for Law nº 13.769/2018. The decisions were collected from the electronic sites of the STJ and STF, using the following entries for searching: “13.769”, “situation” and “very exceptional”, “remand” and “house arrest”. The data was distributed onto an Excel spreadsheet and analyzed under the theoretical-methodological perspective of communicativation. The analysis treated methodological elements applied in empirical research on sentencing and the construction of juridical meaning and authorship, where rapporteur, vote and unanimity were not taken as transmitters of information and decisions, but as pertaining to wordings. The study made viable reflections that indicate the necessity for distancing from causal logic, at the same time promoting the application of reflexive circular logic, as proposed by the communicativationist perspective. What one stresses here is the impossibility of empirical research on juridical decision without transdisciplinary reflection. As for juridical meaning, we observe that it is not suited to a fixed meaning, but rather a constant process of construction, reconstruction and deconstruction of meaning. Observation reveals that three deliberations (drug trafficking at the residence, noncompliance with previous house arrest and participation in organized crime), having induced the construction of meaning in the direction of a very exceptional situation, are not contained in the legal text, nor in any judicial precedent, independent of their first-time application, non-application or reapplication. Finally, as a result of observing that within the same proceedings the same minister, whilst rapporteur votes for house arrest and whilst not rapporteur votes against it, we consider that it is not fitting to maintain authorship as though it would be responsible for the establishment of meaning. Preceding this, the juridical meaning of something is made and unmade due to juridical communication itself, not due to the author. The study, with these contributions, reveals how important and necessary it is to develop methodological and epistemological reflections about studies on juridical decision.Keywords: Female incarceration; House arrest; Legal decision; Systems theory; Comunicativation.

This study aimed to clarify the standard for layperson’s legal decision and identify factors that contribute to establishing the criterion. Two samples were studied (undergraduate students and comm...

Reason and emotion are often cast as opposites. Yet emotion comes in a wide array of manifestations and has a variety of relations with its supposed opposite. Understanding emotion better is key to grasping how jurisprudence casts the relation between psychology and judicial decision making. Jurisprudents disagree on whether and when (lack of) emotion is a problem for decision makers in the justice system. The aim of this paper is to shed light on unarticulated assumptions in mainstream legal theory concerning this disagreement. The paper plots the different positions jurisprudents hold concerning the role of emotion in judicial decision making, regardless of where they stand on matters such the nature of law. The paper substantiates the claim that legal theorists often take an irrationalist approach to emotion but occasionally develop an alternative account that is closer to a cognitivist approach, the prime example of which is the claim that equity requires practical reasoning. Emotions are then cast as skills to be appreciated. The paper concludes that jurisprudence adopts a simplistic view of emotion. The study of the role of emotion has been hampered by the tendency to view emotions reductively. My classificatory effort warrants the conclusion that lack of emotion - understood as a skill in cognitivist terms - constitutes a problem for justice.

Despite recent increases in reported cases of elder overmedication, there is little research investigating the perception of elder overmedication in the courtroom. Male and female participants (N =...

In international law, the exercise of legal discretion is constrained by criteria, such as the abuse of rights doctrine and the principle of legal certainty. The hitherto research of these criteria gives reason to take up a discussion on the appropriate way of conceptualising discretion and constraining criteria. This article, in contrast to the belief of other scholars, makes a case for the understanding of the exercise of discretion as an activity separate from legal interpretation. As it insists, the application of a constraining criterion is wholly distinct from the form of arguments that can be derived from rules of interpretation.

This article is an examination of human oversight in EU policy for controlling algorithmic systems in automated legal decision making. Despite the shortcomings of human control over complex technical systems, human oversight is advocated as a solution against the risks of increasing reliance on algorithmic tools. For law, human oversight provides an attractive, easily implementable and observable procedural safeguard. However, without awareness of its inherent limitations, human oversight is in danger of becoming a value in itself, an empty procedural shell used as a stand-in justification for algorithmization but failing to provide protection for fundamental rights. By complementing socio-legal analysis with Science and Technology Studies, critical algorithm studies, organization studies and human-computer interaction research, the author explores the importance of keeping the human in the loop and asks what the human element at the core of legal decision making is. Through algorithmization it is made visible how law conceptualises decision making through human actors, personalises legal decision making through the decision-maker’s discretionary power that provides proportionality and common sense, prevents gross miscarriages of justice and establishes the human encounter deemed essential for the feeling of being heard. The analysis demonstrates the necessary human element embedded in legal decision making, against which the meaningfulness of human oversight needs to be examined.