(In)aplicabilidade do adágio in dubio pro societate na decisão de pronúncia: críticas à postura neopragmatista do Supremo Tribunal Federal à luz da doutrina do direito como integridade de Ronald Dworkin

Abstract

In a context of a strong crisis of legitimacy of republican institutions, the article asked: is the definition of the (in)applicability of the adage in dubio pro societate in the pronouncement decision by the Federal Supreme Court aligned with the neopragmatic bias or is it based on the identification of the single correct answer, following Ronald Dworkin's theory of Law as Integrity? It was established, as a general objective, to identify the rationality dispensed by the Federal Supreme Court for the definition of the evidentiary standard necessary for the pronouncement decision and the consequent (in)applicability of the adage in dubio pro societate in this decision. In this clipping, we sought to understand the (in)applicability of the in dubio pro societate for the pronouncement of the pronunciation, from the perspective of the democratic exercise of judicial control, as the essence of the criminal process of a constitutional nature, as well as to identify the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court in the definition of this evidentiary standard, from a hermeneutic filtering in the light of Ronald Dworkin's thesis of “Law as Integrity”. It started from the hypothesis that the Federal Supreme Court takes a neopragmatic stance regarding the criterion on the evidentiary standard necessary for the pronunciation decision and consequent (in)applicability of the in dubio pro societate principle in this decision, causing a dysfunctionality of the federalist system and democratic, as well as that the identification of the single correct answer would be enough to preserve the coherence of the federalist and democratic system. The relevance of the topic reverberates not only in its actuality, in the face of poignant legal debates in the orbit of the Federal Supreme Court, but it is also relevant to the magistrates in the conduct of the analyzed cases, to the jurisdictions and to the justice system. The research was developed using a quantitative-qualitative methodology, using data collection and interpretation techniques, adopting a hybrid, deductive and inductive approach, with a bibliographic, document and case studies review procedure.