Argumentação e discurso sobre Lei Maria da Penha em acórdãos do STJ

Lúcia Gonçalves Freitas

doi:10.1590/s2176-45732014000100006

Lúcia Gonçalves Freitas

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1590/s2176-45732014000100006

Copy DOI

Abstract

Neste artigo, usamos a Análise de Discurso Crítica (ADC) como abordagem teórico-metodológica para analisar argumentos de ministros e ministras do Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) em um acórdão que afetou o entendimento jurisprudencial brasileiro sobre a Lei Maria da Penha. O principal objetivo neste trabalho é analisar como a Justiça constrói argumentos relativos à violência contra as mulheres em um órgão público notório, como o STJ, que é popularmente conhecido como "Tribunal da Cidadania" por, supostamente, garantir o exercício de vários direitos para a população brasileira. Também buscamos trazer a público diálogos conflitantes, ideologias e jogos de poder inerentes à decisão em análise.

Highlights

The quote above is from ―The Politics,‖ by Aristotle, who is considered to be the father of Rhetoric
In opposition to the dichotomous visions of his time, which defined language as the individual representation of thought, or as a system abstracted from the social practices of use, Bakhtin rescued linguistics from the formalism that isolated it in the social field
Justices throughout Brazil had to decide between attending to the victim‘s desire to forgive the aggressor and decline the proceeding, or prioritizing the social causes of gender-based violence and with regard to human rights, which guided the decision in the Maria da Penha Act, and punishing the aggressor, even if against the victim‘s will

Summary

Introduction

The quote above is from ―The Politics,‖ by Aristotle, who is considered to be the father of Rhetoric. Justices throughout Brazil had to decide between attending to the victim‘s desire to forgive the aggressor and decline the proceeding, or prioritizing the social causes of gender-based violence and with regard to human rights, which guided the decision in the Maria da Penha Act, and punishing the aggressor, even if against the victim‘s will This issue was resolved in 2012 by the Supreme Federal Court, in the trial of a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality, which argued that gender-based crimes should not be considered private action, but instead are public penal lawsuits not conditional to the representation of the victim. Reviewing the arguments used in the text allows one to understand the dialogic processes that activate power relations disputed within the deciding entity with regard to women‘s right to non-violence while reflecting on the framework of legal discourse

Reviewing the Ruling with Regard to Critical Discourse Analysis

Arguments on Gender-based Violence in the Discourse of Decision

Arguments in the Defense of the Rights of the Family to Harmony in the Home

Arguments in the Defense of the Right to Absolve the Aggressor

Conclusion