In dubio pro societate: a dúvida razoável quanto a indícios suficientes de autoria e participação delitiva na decisão de pronúncia

Abstract

The in dubio pro societate consists of a dogma of law constructed by the doctrine, being widely applied by the judges in the pronunciation phase inserted in the staggered procedure of the Jury Court. When there is reasonable doubt for part of the judge with regard to sufficient evidence of criminal responsibility or participation, the rule, in the understanding of the courts, has been the pronouncement of the accused, in prevailing societal interest. The automation of this principle threatens constitutional and procedural guarantees of the defendant, by relativizing individual rights in for the supposed interest of the community. Although largely conceived by the doctrine and jurisprudence, the subject deserves attention from scholars of Law for contradict the primordial good of freedom experienced in the Democratic State of Right. Thus, the present research aims to explain the stages of the procedure, taking into account the purpose of the pronunciation phase as a procedural filter, to so that the risks of the unrestricted application of the in dubio pro societate can be traced. For this, the legitimacy of the principle will be considered in the pronunciation decisions, taking into account, still, the indispensability of following a standard of proof that make it possible