Editorial do dossiê “Admissibilidade da prova no processo penal: entre a busca pela verdade, os direitos humanos e a eficiência do procedimento”
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v7i1.537Palavras-chave:
admissibilidade da prova, direitos individuais, barganha penal, prova digital, ilicitude probatória.Resumo
As regras sobre admissibilidade de provas garantem a verificação exata dos fatos como uma condição para a aplicação correta do direito penal material e o funcionamento adequado do sistema de justiça criminal na sociedade. Mas a busca pela verdade deve ser limitada para ponderar outros valores importantes, entre os quais os direitos humanos têm importância central. A meta de equilíbrio justo entre a persecução efetiva do crime e o respeito aos direitos individuais permanece constantemente no centro de acaloradas discussões. No entanto, existem dois outros fatores que influenciam fortemente as regras probatórias, gerando um cenário onde encontrar a verdade torna-se mais complicado do que nunca. A generalização da resolução de casos sem processo (barganha penal) e o impacto de tecnologia e ciência, ambas inter-relacionadas e dirigidas à eficiência do sistema de justiça criminal, paradoxalmente tornam a busca pela verdade mais fácil e rápida, mas também mais sujeita a erros. Além disso, as novas tecnologias que permitem a coleta de provas tornaram-se uma ameaça determinante ao direito à privacidade. Encontrar soluções para esses desafios exige um diálogo que inclua as várias partes interessadas e livre do populismo penal que recentemente dominou o debate jurídico.
Downloads
Referências
AMBOS Kai. International Criminal Procedure: “Adversarial”, “Inquisitorial” or “Mixed”? International Criminal Law Review, vol. 3, pp. 1-37, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1163/156753603767877084
ASHWORTH Andrew. Excluding Evidence as Protecting Rights. Criminal Law Review, vol. 3, pp. 723-735, 1977.
ASHWORTH Andrew. Exploring the integrity principle in evidence and procedure En: MIRFIELD Paul, SMITH Roger. Essays for Colin Tapper, Oxford–New York: Lexis-Nexis, 2003.
ASHWORTH Andrew; REDMAYNE Mike. The Criminal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
BACHMAIER WINTER Lorena. Spain: The Constitutional Court’s Move from Categorical Exclusion to Limited Balancing. En: THAMAN Stephen C. (ed.) Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law. Springer: Dordrecht–Heidelberg–New York–London, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5348-8_9
BORGERS Matthias J.; STEVENS Lonneke. The Netherlands: Statutory Balancing and a Choice of Remedies. En: THAMAN Stephen C. (ed.) Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law. Springer: Dordrecht–Heidelberg–New York–London, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5348-8_8
BRADLEY Craig M.; HOFFMNN Joseph L. Public Perception, Justice and the “Search for the Truth” in Criminal Cases. Southern California Law Review, vol. 69, pp. 1267-1302, 1996.
CAIANELLO Michele. Criminal Process faced with the Challenges of Scientific and Technological Development, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 2019, vol. 27. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-02704001
CAIANELLO Michele. Criminal Process faced with the Challenges of Scientific and Technological Development. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, vol. 27, pp. 265-289, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-02704001
CHAU Peter. Excluding Integrity? Revisiting Non-Consequentialist Justifications for Excluding Improperly Obtained Evidence in Criminal Trials. En: ROBERTS Paul, HUNTER Jill, YOUNG Simon NM., DIXON David (eds.). The Integrity of Criminal Process. From Theory into Practice, Oxford–Portland: Hart Publishing, 2016. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474201407.ch-011
CHOO Andrew L-T. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Criminal Justice. Oxford-Portland: Oxford University Press, 2013.
DAMAŠKA Mirjan. The jury and the law of evidence: real and imagined interconnections. Law, Probability and Risk, vol. 5, issue 3-4, pp. 255-265, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgm009
DELMAS_MARTY Mireille. Reflections on the “Hybridisation” of Criminal Procedure. En: JACKSON John, LANGER Máximo, TILLERS Peter (eds.). Crime, Procedure and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context. Essays in honour of Professor Mirjan Damaška, Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing, 2008. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472564528.ch-013
FOWLER Joanna E.N.; Noyes Janet M. From dialing to tapping: University students report on mobile phone use. Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 3, pp. 4716-4723, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.568
George DERY III M., MEEHAN Kevin. A New Digital Divide? Considering the Implications of Riley v. California’s Warrant Mandate for Cell Phone Searches. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change vol. 18 (4), 2015.
GLESS Sabine. AI in the Courtroom: A Comparative Analysis of Machine Evidence in Criminal Trials, Georgetown Journal of International Law vol. 51, 2020.
GUERRINI Christi J.; ROBINSON Jill O.; PETERSEN Devan, McGUIRE Amy L. Should police have access to genetic genealogy databases? Capturing the Golden State Killer and other criminals using a controversial new forensic technique, PLOS Biology, 2 October 2018. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006906
HILBERT Jim. The Disappointing History of Science in the Courtroom: Frye, Daubert, and the Ongoing Crisis of “Junk Science” in Criminal Trials. Oklahoma Law Review, vol. 71, 2019.
HO Hock Lai. A Philosophy of Evidence Law. Justice in the Search for Truth, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
HODGSON Jacqueline S. The Metamorphosis of Criminal Justice. A Comparative Account, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
JACKSON John; ROBERTS Paul. Beyond Common Law Evidence: Reimagining and Reinvigorating, Evidence Law as Forensic Science. En: BROWN Darryl K., TURNER Jenia J.; WEISSER Bettina (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190659837.013.40
JEHLE Jörg-Martin, WADE Marianne. Coping with Overloaded Criminal Justice Systems. The Rise of Prosecutorial Power in Europe, Berlin: Springer 2006.
KEEN Peter Carmichael. Tempered Adversariality: The Judicial Role and Trial Theory in the International Criminal Tribunals. Leiden Journal of International Law, vol. 17, pp. 767-814, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0922156504002225
KEHL Danielle; GUO Priscilla; KESSLER Samuel. Algorithms in the Criminal Justice System: Assessing the Use of Risk Assessments in Sentencing. Responsive Communities Initiative, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School, July 2017.
KREMENS Karolina. Dowody osobowe w międzynarodowym postępowaniu karnym. Toruń: TNOiK, 2010.
KREMENS Karolina. Powers of the Prosecutor in Criminal Investigation. A Comparative Perspective. New York: Routledge, 2021 (forthcoming).
KUSAK Martyna, Mutual admissibility of evidence in criminal matters in the EU. A study of telephone tapping and house search, Antwerpen: Maklu, 2016.
LANGER Máximo. Plea-bargaining, Conviction Without Trial and the Global Administratization of Criminal Convictions, Annual Review of Criminology, 2021, vol. 4. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092255
LASAGNI Giulia, Tackling phone searches in Italy and the United States: Proposals for a technological rethinking of procedural rights and freedoms, New Journal of European Criminal Law, vol. 9 (3), 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/2032284418798053
MACLIN Tracey. The Supreme Court and Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199795475.001.0001
MENASHE Doron, A Critical Analysis of the Online Court, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, vol. 39 (4), 2018.
MITSILEGAS Valsamis. EU Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing, 2009.
MUNDIS Daryl A., From ‘Common Law’ Towards ‘Civil Law’: The Evolution of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Leiden Journal of International Law, vol. 14, pp. 367-382, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0922156501000188
NELLIS Mike, The Electronic Monitoring of Offenders in England and Wales: Recent Developments and Future Prospects, The British Journal of Criminology, vol. 31 (2), 1991.
NELLIS Mike, Understanding the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders in Europe: Expansion, Regulation and Prospects, Crime, Law and Social Change, vol. 62, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-014-9540-8
ROBERTS Paul; ZUCKERMAN Adrian, Criminal Evidence, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
RUGGIERI Francesca; MARCOLINI Stefano. Italy. En: LIGETI Katalin (ed.). Toward a Prosecution for the European Union, Volume 1. A Comparative Analysis, Oxford–Portland: Hart Publishing, 2013.
RYAN Andrea. Towards a System of European Criminal Justice. The Problem of Admissibility of Evidence, New York: Routledge 2014. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315770031
SACHAROFF Laurent. The Fourth Amendment Inventory as a Check on Digital Searches, Iowa Law Review vol. 105, pp. 1643-1699, 2020.
SKOLNIK Terry. Improving the Current Law of Warrantless Cellphone Searches after R v. Fearon, Revue Juridique Thémis de l’Université de Montréal, vol. 49, 2015.
SOUSA William H., COLDREN James R.; RODRIGUEZ Denise Jr., BRAGA Anthony A. Research on Body Worn Cameras: Meeting the Challenges of Police Operations, Program Implementation, and Randomized Controlled Trial Designs, Police Quarterly, vol. 19 (3), 2016. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611116658595
SPENCER John R. Evidence. En: DELMAS-MARTY Mireille; SPENCER John R. European Criminal Procedures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
TURNER Jenia Iontcheva, WEIGEND Thomas. The Purposes and Functions of Exclusionary Rules: A Comparative Overview. In: GLESS Sabine, RICHTER Thomas (eds.). Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial? A Comparative Perspective on Evidentiary Rules. Cham: Springer, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12520-2_8
VANDERMEERSCH Damien, Droit continental vs. droit anglo-américain: quells enseignements pour le droit belge de la procédure pénale, Revue de Droit Penal et de Criminologie, 2001, pp. 467-531.
WALTOŚ Stanisław; HOFMAŃSKI Piotr. Proces karny. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, 2016.
WEIGEND Thomas. Germany. En: LIGETI Katalin (ed.). Toward a Prosecution for the European Union, Volume 1. A Comparative Analysis, Oxford–Portland: Hart Publishing, 2013.
WEIGEND, Thomas. Should We Search for the Truth, and Who Should Do it? North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, vol. XXXVI, pp. 389-415, 2011.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Os direitos autorais dos artigos publicados são do autor, com direitos do periódico sobre a primeira publicação, impressa e/ou digital.
Os autores somente poderão utilizar os mesmos resultados em outras publicações indicando claramente este periódico como o meio da publicação original. Se não houver tal indicação, considerar-se-á situação de auto-plágio.
- Portanto, a reprodução, total ou parcial, dos artigos aqui publicados fica sujeita à expressa menção da procedência de sua publicação neste periódico, citando-se o volume e o número dessa publicação, além do link DOI para referência cruzada. Para efeitos legais, deve ser consignada a fonte de publicação original.
Por se tratar de periódico de acesso aberto, permite-se o uso gratuito dos artigos em aplicações educacionais e científicas desde que citada a fonte, conforme a licença da Creative Commons.
A partir de 2022, os artigos publicados na RDPP estão licenciados com uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional. Os artigos puliicados até 2021 adotaram a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
---------------
Arquivamento e distribuição
Permite-se sem restrições o arquivamento do PDF final publicado, em qualquer servidor de acesso aberto, indexador, repositório ou site pessoal, como Academia.edu e ResearchGate.
Como Citar
