Search

Although from a scientific and epistemological perspective, criminal investigation is an interdisciplinary activity governed by operational principles and legal norms (rules and principles), the operational principles are governed (or limited) by legal norms. Consequently, the best dogmatic construction places them as guiding criteria of the constitutional principle of efficiency. The operational principles of immediacy, timeliness and secrecy characterize criminal investigation and are limited by legal norms to protect fundamental rights and guarantees. Current paper defines these operational principles and their relationships with legal norms. Theoretical research through an analysis of laws, STF judgments, research and articles on the subject of criminal investigation and underlying principles concludes that (a) the principle of immediacy is not restricted by legal norms; (b) the principle of opportunity is largely restricted by legal norms to protect fundamental rights and guarantees, particularly the right to privacy and intimacy; (c) the principle of secrecy, restricted within the investigative line, is not limited by legal norms. Current paper concludes that operational principles have a core of their own and that legal norms restrict these principles on the basis of fundamental rights and guarantees, but not to such an extent that they violate the constitutional principle of efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Direito e Práxis is the property of Editora da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (EdUERJ) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article aims, in general, to identify the limits to the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in judicial decision making, having as specific objectives: (i) to describe the context of the use of AI from the due legal process; (ii) identify the analytical basis hypotheses provided for in the ordinary legislation and their conformation from the use of AI instruments, with a focus on explainability. The operationalization of jurisdiction, in the current context of a justice system permeated by AI instruments, must find limits in the Constitution of the Republic, in the theory of judicial decision and in specific rules of legal hermeneutics. Such limits, however, were not created with an eye towards AI, which is why there remains the need to identify beacons for the ethical use of technological tools in the Judiciary. As a research problem, we intend to discuss what are the limits to the use of AI in decision making, whether in the civil or criminal fields, based on the so-called analytical reasoning, provided for in articles 489, §1, CPC, and 315, §2, CPP. The procedure method used is the hypothetical-deductive method. The research technique is bibliographic. It is suggested, as a hypothesis, the Judiciary, as an instrument for the protection of fundamental and personality rights, when exercising decision-making based on AI instruments, is limited, in principle, to repetitive decisions devoid of complexity, the which even meet the duty of reasoning when working on the concept of explicability, under penalty of violating due process of law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Direito e Práxis is the property of Editora da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (EdUERJ) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Brazilian Supreme Court rulings on the Arguição de Descumprimento de preceito fundamental (ADPF) n° 132 and the Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade (ADI) n° 4277 created the precedents responsible for the recognition of same-sex civil unions in Brazil, a breakthrough in the history of LGBT rights. However, with the legal obligation to meet the same requirements demanded for heterosexual civil unions, homosexual unions face a barrier: the need to prove the relationship's publicity. In fact, the requirement of notoriety, when applied by courts in cases where the bonds are not externalized due to fear of homophobic practices isn't adequate. Furthermore, this requirement must be pondered in order to ensure the fundamental right to privacy, as provided in the Constitution. In conclusion, the flexibilization of the legal requirement of publicity does not always occur in Brazilian courts and, when applied, it's not enough to ensure the recognition of homo-affective civil unions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Jurídica (0103-3506) is the property of Revista Juridica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Direito GV is the property of Fundacao Getulio Vargas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Jurídica (0103-3506) is the property of Revista Juridica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Teoria Jurídica Contemporânea is the property of Teoria Juridica Contemporanea and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista de Direitos Fundamentais & Democracia is the property of Revista de Direitos Fundamentais & Democracia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Federal Supreme Court - STF, in a recent historic decision, uttered in the process of Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental n° 132-RJ, confers to homoaffective partners the same juridical effects regarding stable union as to those of different gender. In search for this recongnition, the action invoked the interpretation "according to the Constitution", where it sought to show that in a sistematic vision the desired right had support. The Court gave providence based on the contextual hermeneutics, which had sustaining in a series of constitutional principles, especially in those of a person's dignity, equality and freedom. The founding value, however, which is the human, yet it is set in the wide network of discursive reasoning, appears more in a tacit manner, when the opposite was expected: that the human aspect fixed in the center and base of this argumentation. For example, it is even said that homosexuality is not an illness, nor a deviance nor an option, but a sexual orientation. And if it was it all at once, for being ill wouldn't he have a shelter, or for it being an option wouldn't he have freedom of choice? This proposal is to see a new reading of this decision, starting in the election of some excerpts of the speech (due to smallness of space), displaying, in a dialectic and deductive perspective, that in light of the human rights, the minorities, i.e. the homosexuals, can receive the analysis of their pleas from a safer filter [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Direitos Fundamentais & Democracia is the property of Revista de Direitos Fundamentais & Democracia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The category of minority is used as argumentative reinforcement in Law for the defense of fundamental rights. It is destined to groups that were historically marginalized, and claim for public recognition of their peculiarities and the protection of rights. This category, which appeared linked to the idea of state sovereignty and nationality, now is extended to demands ignored before. The interpretation of principles related to the minority category must therefore be conceived as a need for consolidation of constitutional democratic values. This study aims to identify how the minority category is articulated in decisions of the judiciary. The source of precedents on which research is developed are those decisions of all instances of the Brazilian courts, tried and published since October 5, 1988 until July 31, 2010. The conclusion is that the use of minority category by the judges pursues the democratic ideal of law enforcement to those belonging to minority groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]