Cidadania e a prova ilícita penal pro societate

• Ano de defesa: 2014
• Autor(a) principal: Fichmann, Carolina
• Orientador(a): Francisco, José Carlos
• Banca de defesa: Smanio, Gianpaolo Poggio , Rothenburg, Walter Claudius
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Direito Político e Econômico
• Departamento: Direito
• País: BR
• Palavras-chave em Português: inadmissibilidade das provas ilícitas; proibição da proteção deficiente; prova ilícita penal pro societate
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: prohibition of unlawful evidence; prohibition of poor protection; proofillicit criminal pro societate
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO::DIREITO PUBLICO::DIREITO PENAL
• Link de acesso: http://dspace.mackenzie.br/handle/10899/23845

The prohibition of illegal evidences is a constitutional rule of thumb which guarantees a wide range of fundamental rights. Nonetheless, such rule is not insurmountable. Among the mechanisms available to soften the rule stated on Article 5, paragraph LVI, of the Brazilian Constitution of 1988, there is the so called proportionality criteria, which is responsible to measure and evaluate the interests involved in a concrete case. There are two main streams that study the proportionality criteria. The first stream preaches the protection of individual rights against abusive acts perpetrated by the State. On the other hand, the second stream envisages protecting the society, forbidding any flaws in the assurance of social rights guaranteed by the Welfare State. Originally, the first stream of the proportionality criteria demonstrates a greater relation to the negative garantism, reflecting a moment in time when the State adopted a more passive behaviour. However, in light of the atrocities committed during the Second World War, it became clear the need of an effective State intervention given tha t the governmental passive attitude, limited to the mere legislation of fundamental rights in a piece of paper, proved not to be enough. Combined with such paradigm shift, there has also been an evolution in the concept of legal garantism, which turned positive, enabling the rise of a second stream of the proportionality criteria, which aims to prevent abuses against fundamental rights. Considering this new historical environment, depending on the interests involved on the specific case, the criminal illegal evidence pro societate is admitted. Analyzing case law, it is evident that, sometimes, the need to protect core values of the society reveals to be preponderant. In such cases the proportionality criteria is not utilized, so that proofs that initially would be treated as illegal, become lawful, protecting by these means higher valuable social fundamental rights. Not only, but sometimes there is not even need to talk about collisions of values in the case and the lawfulness of proof is unquestioned. In this perspective, the case law admits certain institutes and theories - such as the random knowledge, for example - in order to relativize that proof that before could be considered illegal. Thus, it is precisely in this context that criminal illegal evidence pro societate finds shelter.