A (im)possibilidade de integração analógica das regras procedimentais contidas no artigo 226 do Código de Processo Penal ao reconhecimento fotográfico
The present research aims to analyze the procedure of eyewitness identification as a means of evidence in the Brazilian criminal process, with emphasis on that carried out through photographs and integrated in an analogous way to the internal legal system. The discussion comprehend about validity an...
Na minha lista:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Outros Autores: | |
| Formato: | bachelorThesis |
| Idioma: | pt_BR |
| Publicado em: |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
|
| Assuntos: | |
| Endereço do item: | https://repositorio.ufrn.br/handle/123456789/51647 |
| Tags: |
Adicionar Tag
Sem tags, seja o primeiro a adicionar uma tag!
|
| Resumo: | The present research aims to analyze the procedure of eyewitness identification as a means of evidence in the Brazilian criminal process, with emphasis on that carried out through photographs and integrated in an analogous way to the internal legal system. The discussion comprehend about validity and effectiveness inherent to the procedure for the identification of criminal authorship, highlighting its direct dependence on human perception and memory. To this end, it was necessary to proceed with a qualitative examination of what the doctrine and legislation had on the subject, as well as a case study, an explanatory analysis of the jurisprudential settled in the superior national courts, in addition to an empirical survey of decisions of the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Norte. It was possible to verify the fragility that the evidence from positive identification of individuals presents, especially when the procedure is performed informally, as well as through photography. It was also found that this evidence has a great impressionistic value for setting convictions, generally corroborating and raising the relevance of the victim's word, despite being supported by the same complex and fallible variable. In the process of ensuring greater reliability and accuracy to its result, it was proposed to strictly follow the legal parameters available to conduct eyewitness identification, as well as the insufficiency of its terms and the consequent need for legislative reform. It was also argued for its unrepeatable character and the need for its early production in criminal prosecution. |
|---|