The false dilemma between literalism and voluntarism
an emblematic case in the Supreme Court
Keywords:
Closing arguments, Plea bargaining, HermeneuticsAbstract
The editorial discusses the tension between literalism and voluntarism in legal interpretation, based on the STF ruling on the order of closing arguments in cases involving plea bargains. It argues that article 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not provide for situations involving plea bargains, but the Court, by recognizing the right of the accused to speak last, avoided distortions that an excessive attachment to the text would generate. The text shows how, in certain cases, the Court oscillates between formalism and activism, highlighting the importance of a hermeneutic that is consistent with constitutional guarantees.
Downloads
References
STRECK, Lenio Luiz. O literalista e o voluntarista diante dos cães na plataforma. Consultor Jurídico, 7 out. 2019.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright of published articles belongs to the author, but with journal rights over the first publication and respecting the one-year exclusivity period. Authors may only use the same results in other publications by clearly indicating this journal as the medium of the original publication. If there is no such indication, it will be considered a situation of self-plagiarism.
Therefore, the reproduction, total or partial, of the articles published here is subject to the express mention of the origin of its publication in this journal, citing the volume and number of this publication. For legal purposes, the source of the original publication must be consigned, in addition to the DOI link for cross-reference (if any).
