A justificação das decisões judiciais e o estado de direito

• Ano de defesa: 2012
• Autor(a) principal: Bastos, Rodrigo Reis Ribeiro
• Orientador(a): Pugliesi, Marcio
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Direito
• Departamento: Faculdade de Direito
• País: BR
• Palavras-chave em Português: Decisões judiciais; Fundamentação; Justificação; Estado; Democracia; Direito; Lógica; Verificação; Sistema
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Judgments; Rationale; Justification; State; Democracy; Right; Logic; Check; System
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO
• Link de acesso: https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/5886

The primary objective of this work is to understand how they can give concreteness and effectiveness of Article 93 of the Federal Constitution which IX compliance is necessary to guarantee the democratic rule of law. For this to be done there is to discover what are the criteria to be used to identify an adequate justification for decisions. In the first chapter sought to establish the concept of knowledge and the boundary between knowledge and nonsense. At this point it was determined that the root note of knowledge is the rational justification of a statement and that rationality is defined as the construction of a logical proof in the form of inferences. This logical proof must meet three requirements: A) the axiomatic foundations must be explicit; B) the inference rules used must be clearly defined in advance; C) the semantic content (meaning) of the terms used in the premises of proof should be fixed , clarified and explained. Having established that as much knowledge as court decisions have an equal need for justification is concluded that the standards of rational justification used to distinguish the knowledge of the foolish ones are also needed to give concreteness to the constitutional imperative that determines the need to give reasons for decisions . The next step was, in chapter two, establish what the rules of inference commonly used in legal reasoning. Once established the rules of inference has passed the exposure of many reasons most commonly used in decisions. Then, in chapter four, we tried to establish a model where they explained the criteria imposed by law for fixing the best explanation contained in the minor premise and deductions contained in the major premise. Also, if you attempted to make explicit the semantic content (meaning) of the terms that are used on these premises during the construction of algorithms that operate the system. The next step will be, with the use of what has been researched and above, the formulation of "drawing" of the auxiliary system and the creation of a working prototype that can be taken to test