Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2018 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Schmitz, Leonard Ziesemer
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Alvim, Arruda |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Tese
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Direito
|
| Departamento: |
Faculdade de Direito
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/21605
|
Resumo: |
The present doctoral thesis seeks to deal with judicial presumptions, thus understood inferential reasoning about unknown facts, from facts known and proven in a concrete case. First, we want to identify if there are the spaces of discretion that are shielded by insufficient presumptive arguments. The work is divided into two parts, with three chapters each. The first part serves to establish theoretical premises, and the second part to approach more closely the topic of presumptions in court. The first chapter discusses the conditions of possibility for the interpreter of a particular case to become aware of the facts narrated by other Interpreter-Subjects. Further notes are given on how the ransom of the past occurs when the judge analyzes the evidence and the probative narratives of the parties. The second chapter deals with science and rationality as grounds for the relation between two facts – one known, one unknown. Considerations are made about generalizations from experience, which allow for deductive, inductive, and analogical reasoning. Also questioned is the sufficiency of the use of the argument of "rationality", often insufficient to infer. The third chapter discusses the relationship between evidence and truth, especially when a judicial presumption is often made in the name of the "pursuit of truth" in the judicial process. Moving on to the second part, the fourth chapter addresses the division of labor between parties and judge in the correctness of the facts, establishing limits of action of each Subject of the process. There is also talk of judicial evidentiary activism. The fifth chapter deals specifically with the presumptions and rules of experience (Article 375 of the CPC), which serve as argumentative basis for inferences. The sixth and final chapter captures presumptions in their practical use and speaks, in detail, of the decision to reorganize and organize the process (article 357 of the CPC), which may be an opportune moment for the correct treatment of the subject. Finally, conclusions are drawn about a possible criteriology for the legitimate and discursive use of inferential reasoning |
