Abstract
This article aims to show that the binding precedent No. 26, issued by the Supreme Court in 2009, is a manifestation of judicial activism. Considering the characters of the current constitutional jurisdiction model, the judicial activity cannot be confused with a predominantly political action in order to replace the political activity exercised by the Legislature otherwise frustrate the rule of law paradigm. From this demarcation is that it analyzes the issue of binding precedent No. 26 by the Supreme Court in 2009, this summary that has the criminological examination by object. The Court, bypassing the legislative amendment operated in 2003, which no longer require the criminological examination as a requirement progression system, restored the right of appeal to the examination as a mechanism able to verify to implement subjective requirement. From this framework, this paper questions the limits of judicial intervention in politics harvest, ignoring the legislative manifestation and inserting an unfavorable condition for inmates, under the pretense order to ensure social security. Therefore, theoretically analyzes the criticisms to judicial activism and then apply them to the context of the issue of binding precedent under discussion, mainly analyzing the survey forecast of historical criminological in the Penal Execution Law and the justifications for reintegration this requirement.
Highlights
A pesquisa atenta para a crescente judicialização da política, com a postura da sociedade de cobrar, no âmbito Judiciário, soluções que originariamente caberiam ao executivo ou legislativo
Observe as normas de publicação, para facilitar e agilizar o trabalho de edição
Summary
A pesquisa atenta para a crescente judicialização da política, com a postura da sociedade de cobrar, no âmbito Judiciário, soluções que originariamente caberiam ao executivo ou legislativo. Trata-se do restabelecimento pelo Judiciário de requisito que dificulta a concessão de um direito assegurado por lei, com base na justificativa de assegurar a segurança social. Por Estado de Direito depreende-se a sujeição desse Estado a princípios e regras limitadores da atuação dos membros do Judiciário, como forma de garantir o controle da atividade jurisdicional pelo povo, de quem emana o poder exercido. O presente artigo estrutura-se a partir da delineação dos contornos que encerram a noção do ativismo judicial para então demonstrar o histórico de previsão do exame criminológico na Lei de Execução Penal (LEP). Partindo do estudo do ativismo judicial no contexto democrático processual, é que se propõe o debate da súmula vinculante de número 26 que tem como objeto o exame criminológico: tema a ser desenvolvido na presente pesquisa
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
