Erro judiciário: uma análise baseada na falha da prova de reconhecimento pessoal
Carregando...
Tipo
TCC
Data de publicação
2021-06
Periódico
Citações (Scopus)
Autores
Garcia, Manuela Magrini Marcos
Orientador
Lopes, Mariângela Tomé
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Membros da banca
Programa
Resumo
O presente estudo visa a apresentação de análise do meio de prova, conforme
previsto no art. 226 do Código de Processo Penal, dispositivo normativo comumente
utilizado no reconhecimento de pessoas e coisas. Sua eficácia, no entanto, depende
de fatores externos e internos ao seu procedimento, buscando a diminuição de risco
de erro. Verificou-se, diante do cenário brasileiro, a relevância dos principais
procedimentos que devem ser observados, mecanismos estes com o objetivo de
respeitar as garantias e direitos fundamentais propostos por nossa Magna Carta. A
memória humana, principal fonte para a formação do processo de reconhecimento, é
falha e facilmente confundida. Esta hipótese, comprovada por diversos estudos
sólidos na área de psicologia humana e correlatos, será objeto de análise em seus
principais aspectos. A confusão no processo de reconhecimento comumente gera
lapsos e falsas recordações, causando grave insegurança jurídica no processo penal
ao recorrer a este meio de prova. O entendimento jurisprudencial, apesar de
conflitante, gradualmente sinaliza a concessão majoritária da nulidade do
reconhecimento se houver desrespeito ao procedimento previsto na sobredita norma
processual. Assim, com base na análise deste meio de prova, é possível mapear
onde estão localizados os pontos de risco e fragilidades do conjunto probatório,
evitando o erro judiciário e alcançando a função social esperada no devido processo
legal.
This study aims to present the means of proof, under Article 226 of the Penal Procedure Code, a legal mechanism usually meant for the identification of people and objects. Its effectiveness, however, is based on both external and internal factors attached to its procedures to reduce the likelihood of mistaken identification. As we place this legal mechanism in its role inside the Brazilian legal system, the relevance of the main formal procedures to observe due process of law remains crucial to guarantee the Constitucional Fundamental Rights. Human memory, the primary source for the recognition process trigger, can often serve one's wrong and get easily mistaken. This hypothesis, confirmed through several valuable papers on human psychology and other close science fields, will be analyzed closely in this academic monograph. Dubious memories in the recognition process usually lead to gaps and false recollections, heading to extensive legal uncertainty in the penal procedure after applying this proof mechanism. Courts understanding, even though conflicting, gradually heads to the robust understanding of nullity in this recognition if there is no consistency in its procedures. Therefore, based on the analysis of this means of proof, it is possible to point out the most significant risks and fragilities in probative evidence to avoid court error and therefore achieve the social function expected in the legal process.
This study aims to present the means of proof, under Article 226 of the Penal Procedure Code, a legal mechanism usually meant for the identification of people and objects. Its effectiveness, however, is based on both external and internal factors attached to its procedures to reduce the likelihood of mistaken identification. As we place this legal mechanism in its role inside the Brazilian legal system, the relevance of the main formal procedures to observe due process of law remains crucial to guarantee the Constitucional Fundamental Rights. Human memory, the primary source for the recognition process trigger, can often serve one's wrong and get easily mistaken. This hypothesis, confirmed through several valuable papers on human psychology and other close science fields, will be analyzed closely in this academic monograph. Dubious memories in the recognition process usually lead to gaps and false recollections, heading to extensive legal uncertainty in the penal procedure after applying this proof mechanism. Courts understanding, even though conflicting, gradually heads to the robust understanding of nullity in this recognition if there is no consistency in its procedures. Therefore, based on the analysis of this means of proof, it is possible to point out the most significant risks and fragilities in probative evidence to avoid court error and therefore achieve the social function expected in the legal process.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
reconhecimento , memória , procedimento , nulidade , recognition , memory , procedure , nullity