Thinking about the quality of adjudication of facts: a model of improvement based on "learning from errors"
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v9i3.900Keywords:
Wrongful Convictions; Evaluation of Evidence; Organizational Learning; Error-based learning; Judicial InnovationAbstract
The tragic consequences of a wrongful conviction require the adoption of mechanisms to prevent its recurrence, and it is not acceptable to disregard the knowledge developed by the safety science, which has long searched for the best path that a given organization should follow to reduce the risk of tragic results in its operation. This article – which seeks to answer the question of which model of protection against error should be adopted by the Judiciary itself – deals precisely with the theoretical knowledge related to the prevention of tragic incidents, with special emphasis on the defense of a friendly approach to errors, which is inevitable to understand their causal complex and to contain their recurrence. From there, a model of organizational learning based on the analysis of cases of judicial errors, indispensable for the evolution of the Justice System, is drawn, which is done from the combination of the claims of safety science, the principles of responsible judicial innovation and the rules that discipline criminal decision-making, especially the facts adjudication.
Downloads
References
BADARÓ, Gustavo. Epistemologia judiciária e prova penal. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2019.
BARR, N.; COOPER, G. Identifying How an Individual Becomes a Suspect: A Needed Addition to the Innocence Literature. The Wrongful Conviction Law Review, vol. 4, n. 1, p. 48-70. 2023. doi:10.29173/wclawr90
BOCHENEK, Antônio C; Zanoni, Luciana. Rede de inovação do poder judiciário brasileiro: histórico dos laboratórios de inovação na justiça federal e a relação com os objetivos de desenvolvimento sustentável. Revista Humanidades e Inovação, v.8, n.47, p. 23-32, 2021.
BOTTINO, Thiago e PRATES, Fernanda: Os megaprocessos e os riscos de condenações injustas. Revista de Informação Legislativa. Brasília a. 58 n. 232 p. 87-106 out./dez. 2021.
BRAGA DAMASCENO, Fernando. A Constituição e a valoração da prova judicial: entre a indiferença e um mandamento de redução do risco de erro. ReJuB - Revista Judicial Brasileira, 1 (1), p. 37-59. 2021 doi: https://doi.org/10.54795/rejub.n.1.76.
BRAGA DAMASCENO, Fernando. Direito Probatório (stricto sensu): da valoração da prova. São Paulo: Tirant lo Blanch, 2023.
CANI, Luiz Eduardo; ROSA, Alexandre Morais da. Guia para mitigação dos erros judiciários no processo penal. Florianópolis: Emais Editora, 2022.
CARDOSO, Vitor Alexandre de Freitas e CUKIERMAN, Henrique Luiz. A abordagem sociotécnica na investigação e na prevenção de acidentes aéreos: o caso do vôo RG-254. Revista Brasileira de Saúde Ocupacional, v. 32, n. 115, pp. 79-98. 2007. p. 79 Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0303-76572007000100008
CARVALHO FILHO, Luís Francisco. Mota Coqueiro: O Erro em Torno do Erro. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Criminais, v. 33/2001, p. 261 – 274, jan - Mar / 2001.
CLEMENTINO, Marco Bruno M. Princípios da Inovação Judicial. In: LUNARDI, Fabrício; CLEMENTINO, Marco B. M (coords.). Inovação judicial: fundamentos e práticas para uma jurisdição de alto impacto. Brasília: ENFAM. 2021. https://doi.org/10.54795/isbn.978-65-88022-07-8
COLLINS, J.M.; JARVIS, J. The wrongful conviction of forensic science, Forensic Sci. Policy Manag. An Int. J., 2009, p. 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/19409040802624067
DAWSON, Robert O. Joint trials of defendants in criminal cases: an analysis of efficiencies and prejudices. Michigan Law Review, [s. l.], v. 77, n. 6, p. 1.379-1.455, June 1979. Disponível em: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol77/iss6/2/. https://doi.org/10.2307/1288108
DEKKER, Sidney. Prosecuting professional mistake: Secondary victimization and a research agenda for criminology. Int. J. Crim. Justice Sci.. 4. 2009
DEKKER, Sidney. The criminalization of human error in aviation and healthcare: A review. Safety Science, 49(2), 121–127. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2010.09.010
DOTTI, Renê Ariel. O caso dos irmãos Naves. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Criminais | vol. 8/1994, p. 184 – 197. 1994
DOYLE, James. Innocence and Prevention: Could we Build Justice Safety Centers?. The Wrongful Conviction Law Review, p. 253-269, 2020. https://doi.org/10.29173/wclawr19
DOYLE, James. Learning from error in American Criminal Justice. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100, p. 109-148, 2010
DUCE, Maurício. Errores del sistema y condena de inocentes: nuevos desafíos para nuestra justicia penal acusatoria. In El modelo adversarial em Chile: ponencias sobre su implementación en la reforma procesal penal. El modelo adversarial en Chile: ponencias sobre su implementación en la reforma procesal penal. Santiago: Legal Publishing, 2013. https://doi.org/10.17141/urvio.3.2008.1073
DUCE, Mauricio; FINDLEY , Keith A. Editorial of dossier “Wrongful convictions and prosecutions: current status, causes, correction and reparation mechanisms” - Wrongful convictions and prosecutions: an introductory overview. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, vol. 8, n. 2, p. 523-566, mai./ago. 2022. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v8i2.746
FANTL, Jeremy. Entitlement and Misleading Evidence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, p. 1-19. 2022.
FERRER BELTRÁN, Jordi. Prolegómenos para uma teoría sobre los estándares de prueba. El test case de la responsabilidad del Estado por prisión preventiva errónea. In: PAPAYANNIS, Diego et al. (eds.). Filosofía del derecho privado. Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2018.
FRANCESCHINI, José Luiz Vicente de Azevedo. Revisão criminal de seu âmbito no direito pátrio – inteligência da locução "sentença condenatória contrária à evidência dos autos". Doutrinas Essenciais Processo Penal, v. 5, p. 965 – 977, São Paulo, 2012.
FRIEDLAND. Steven I (1990). On common sense and the evaluation of witness credibility. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 40 (1): 165-226. 1990.
GARRETT, Brandon. Judging innocence, Columbia Law Rev. 108, 2008, p. 55–142.
GARRETT. Brandon. Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674060982
GINSBURG, Douglas H.; HUNT, Hyland. The prosecutor and post-conviction claims of innocence: DNA and beyond?, Ohio. ST. J. Crim. L, 771, 2010.
GONZÁLEZ LAGIER, Daniel. ¿Es posible formular un estándar de prueba preciso y objetivo? Algunas dudas desde un enfoque argumentativo de la prueba. Revista Telemática de Filosofía del Derecho, 23: 79-97, 2020.
GONZÁLEZ LAGIER, Daniel. Quaestio facti (ensayos sobre prueba causalidad y acción). Lima : Palestra Editores, 2005.
GOULD, Jon B.; LEO, Richard A.. One Hundred Years Later: Wrongful Convictions After a Century of Research, 100, J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 825-868, 2010, p. 827.
GOULD, Jon; CARRANO, Julia; LEO, Richard; HAIL-JARES, Katie. Predicting Erroneous Convictions. Iowa Law Review, 99, 2013.
GROSS, Samuel R.; SHAFFER, M. Exonerations in the United States, 1989-2012: Report by the National Registry of Exonerations. The National Registry of Exonerations, 2012. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2092195
HADDAD, Carlos. Velho conhecido, nova aplicação: exame de DNA pós-condenação. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Criminais, vol. 187/2022. p. 95 – 120. 2022.
HOCK LAI, Ho. A philosophy of evidence law: justice in the search for truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008. https://doi.org/10.3366/e1364980909001693
HOROWITZ, Sophie. Predictably Misleading Evidence. In: SKIPPER, Mattias; STEGLICH-PETERSEN, Asbjørn (eds.). Higher-Order Evidence: New Essays, p. 105–123. Oxford: Oxford Academic, 2019.
HUGHES, Emily. Innocence Unmodified.North Carolina Law Review, v. 89, 2011
JEANGUENAT, Amy M.; DROR, Itiel E.. Human Factors Effecting Forensic Decision Making: WorkplaceStress and Well‐being. Journal of forensic sciences, 63.1. p. 258–261. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13533
KARANIKAS, Nektarios; CHIONIS, Dimitrios; PLIOUTSIAS, Anastasios. (2020). "Old" and "New" Safety Thinking: Perspectives of Aviation Safety Investigators. Safety Science. 125. 1-17. 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104632
LEO, Richard; GOULD, Jon. Studying wrongful convictions: learning from social sciences. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, v. 7, n. 7, pp. 7-30, 2009
LEVERICK, F.; CHALMERS, J. Causes of wrongful conviction. In: CHALMERS, J., LEVERICK, F.; Shaw, A. (eds.). Post-Corroboration Safeguards Review Report of the Academic Expert Group. The Scottish Government, Edinburgh, pp. 30-43, 2014
LUPARIA, Luca; GRECO, Chiara. Unveiling wrongful convictions between U.S. and Italy: cross-learning from each other mistakes. Wrongful Convictions Law Review, v. 1, n. 1, pp. 101-123, 2020. https://doi.org/10.29173/wclawr12
MALEM SEÑA, Jorge F. El error judicial y la formación de los jueces. Barcelona: Gedisa. 2008
MALEM SEÑA, Jorge F.; EZQUIAGA GANUZAS, F. Javier; ANDRÉS IBÁÑEZ, Perfecto. El error judicial. La formación de los jueces. Madrid: F.C.J.E, 2009.
MARCHI. Carlos. Fera de Macabu: a história e o romance de um condenado à morte. Rio de Janeiro: Record, 1998. https://doi.org/10.5216/sig.v12i1.7120
PATRIARCA, Riccardo; DI GRAVIO, Giulio; CIOPONEA, R. & Licu, A.. Safety intelligence: Incremental proactive risk management for holistic aviation safety performance. Safety Science. 2019. 118. 551-567. 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.040.
RIZZELLI, Lucrezia & KASSIN, Saul & GALES, Tammy. The Language of Criminal Confessions: A Corpus Analysis of Confessions Presumed True vs. Proven False. The Wrongful Conviction Law Review, 2, p. 205-225, 2021. https://doi.org/10.29173/wclawr58
ROBBENNOLOT, Jennifer K. Evaluating Juries by Comparison to Judges: A Benchmark for Judging?. Florida State University Law Review, v. 32, p. 469-509, 2005.
ROMEIRO, Jorge Alberto. Elementos de direito penal e processo penal. São Paulo: Saraiva, 1978.
ROSSMO, D. Kim; POLLOCK, Joycelyn M. Confirmation bias and other systemic causes of wrongful convictions: a sentinel events perspective. Northeastern University Law Review, Boston, v. 11, n. 2, p. 790-835, 2019. Disponível em: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56a67d1e05caa777b1877b09/t/609de00f9227c964ce2c004f/1620959251663/Volume+11%2C+Issue+2.pdf. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3413922
SANGERO, Boaz. Safety from False Convictions. Criminal Justice Theory Blog. 2021. Disponível em https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3989119.
SCHILLING, Taís; MÜNCH, Luciane. Inovação a Serviço de um Judiciário transformador: uma perspectiva sistêmica. ReJuB - Revista Judicial Brasileira, v. 1, n. 1, p. 11-36. Brasília: ENFAM, 2021. https://doi.org/10.54795/rejub.n.1.75
SMIT, Nadine; MORGAN, Ruth; LAGNADO, David. A systematic analysis of misleading evidence in unsafe rulings in England and Wales. Science & Justice, 58, p. 128-137, 2017.
STRIDBECK, Ulf; MAGNUSSEN, Philos Svein. Prevention of Wrongful Convictions: Norwegian Legal Safeguards and the Criminal Cases Review Commission. U. Cin. L. Rev, v. 80, 2013, p. 8 e ss.
TAMASCELLI, Nicola; PALTRINIERI, Nicola; COZZANI, Valerio. Learning From Major Accidents: A Meta-Learning Perspective. Safety Science. 158. 2023. p. 5. 105984. 10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105984.
VAN DER WESTHUIZEN, J.; TSHABALALA, M.; STANZ, K. Mistakes, Errors and Failures: Their Hidden Potential in Cultural Contexts – The Power of a Professional Culture. In: Vanderheiden, E., Mayer, CH. (eds) Mistakes, Errors and Failures across Cultures. Springer, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35574-6_30VANDERHEIDEN, Elisabeth; MAYER, Claude-Hélène. There Is a Crack in Everything. That’s How the Light Gets in: An Introduction to Mistakes, Errors and Failure as Resources. In: VANDERHEIDEN, E.; Mayer, CH. (eds.). Mistakes, Errors and Failures across Cultures. Springer, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35574-6_1
VUOLO, José Henrique. Fundamentos da teoria dos erros. São Paulo: Editora Edgard Blücher Ltda, 2005.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Fernando Braga
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As of 2022, articles published in the RDPP are licensed under Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional. rticles published until 2021 adopted the Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
How to Cite
