Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2017 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Abissamra Filho, José Carlos
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Junqueira, Gustavo Octaviano Diniz |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| 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/20463
|
Resumo: |
According to Michel Foucault’s studies (or, papers based on Michel Foucault studies), there are no defined limits between legality and illegality; legality and illegality do not necessarily oppose each other; on the contrary, their relationship is useful and functional. Legal system follows the same path that drives economics. Distancing itself from the speech which makes it legitimate, the legal system ends up not accomplishing its social goals, not granting safety and predictability, and not restraining itself. The principle of legality, when applied on everyday situations, ends up being used as a tool to violate rights, which means the opposite of sustaining economic order and safety (legal predictability), leading to vulnerability and unpredictability. That might be the reason why legal system’s legitimacy has been gradually challenged. Tolerance is one way to mitigate the legal system’s inaccuracy. Prior to installing a new criminal policy or before adhering to an already existing one, and, before approving a bill, models (legal prototypes) should be created, which could help to mitigate the effects of the legal system’s inaccuracy as well |
