A renovação do tribunal do júri brasileiro para a consagração dos princípios processuais do estado democrático de direito

Abstract

The procedural principles provided for in the country's legal system are to the fair, impartial and democratic process, respecting its own rules procedures. In addition, the principles allow a control of the decisions made by the Judiciary, and, in addition, they are the guarantee of the contradictory and ample defense of the parties to the dispute. With regard to the application of principles in the field of criminal procedure, we have, as more relevant, the principles of the decisions, rational persuasion of the judge, impartiality of the legal process. Compliance with these principles is obligatory, under penalty of nullity or non-existence, in all decisions of the national Judiciary. However, the Brazilian Jury Tribunal, which is a member of the Judiciary, has two characteristics, namely, incommunicability of jurors and the intimate system conviction, which directly violate the principle of the other principles mentioned above. In view of this, conciliation between the judgment given by the Brazilian Jury and the observance of the the procedural principles referred to, this monograph contains proposals for amendments to the Jury's Court, namely: replacement of the Jury Escabinado, as well as the declaration of unconstitutionality, through the diffuse or concentrated of constitutionality, of articles of ordinary law that regulate the incommunicability of jurors and the system of intimate conviction. In view of this, once declared unconstitutional and suppressed in the legal form, such articles of law will lose their effects. Consequently, jurors and the court judge who will compose the Escabinado shall submit to the legal precept determining, as a general rule, the reasoning of judicial decisions, as well as the observance and respect for the principles of the impartiality of the judge, persuasion rational, and due process. Finally, in the decisions of the Escabinado, being should be a dialogue between the judges to decide on the specific cases within its competence.