O saber crítico-criminológico na atuação da magistratura criminal a partir da análise de sentenças proferidas no estado do Tocantins durante o ano de 2016

Abstract

It is a research carried out in criminal cases sentenced in 2016, in the 21 criminal courts of the 14 third-order districts of the State of Tocantins, aiming to investigate whether they use critical-criminological and humanistic hermeneutical foundations. In this dissertation, the empirical research was divided in two parts, in the first, the sample universe is 100% of the verdicts (3.163) was given in the year of 2016, in the regions selected, for the purpose of identifying the total number of criminal sentences and the number of convictions (356) and acquittals (150, between proper and improper). Thus, in the second specific part of the analysis, 506 sentences handed down in these cases are studied, with the objective of ascertaining how the criminal (material and procedural) system is being used in the practice of the Tocantins' magistrates. The work is based on the methodological tools offered by Laurence Bardin's content analysis technique, preceded by graphical representations of the data obtained in acquittals and convictions. The perspective of analysis under an interdisciplinary approach is ensured, as it marks the very vocation of Criminology in its critical aspect (strongly influenced by the contributions of other sciences, especially Sociology, Psychology, Psychiatry, Anthropology and Philosophy). The research seeks the existence of a purely dogmatic and shallow posture in the act of judging, or by the use of critical knowledge that is combative of theoretical common sense, reproducing the belief in the ideological function of Criminal Law as an instrument of social defense and re-socialization of the condemned. The conclusion indicates that the critical approach, so necessary in judging, from constitutional foundations and international human rights norms, is not the standard used by the criminal magistrates of Tocantins. On the contrary, the results of the analyzes reveal a large percentage of sentences that still use strictly legalistic and dogmatic arguments in dealing with one of the most basic fundamental human rights, which is the freedom of the people.