The argumentation through the gender sentence of pronunciation in crimes of femicide

Abstract

This work aims to investigate the presence of machismo and patriarchy in sentences of pronunciations produced by judges of law, within the processing of femicide processes. The proposed theme starts from something frequent in the Brazilian news. Despite the advancement of criminal legislation, with the contributions of the Maria da Penha Law (2021), the rates of sexual violence, physical aggression, threat and femicide continue to be socially evident, in this sense, to deal with this issue is to break patriarchal paradigms imposed in the social environment before the female figure. Under this bias, it is understood that violence against women is rooted in society and the measures proposed by government bodies do not seem to be sufficient to decrease the rate of alarming cases of deaths related to women in Brazil. In this sense, it is intended to analyze the constitution of the interlocutors, the argumentative structure and the presence of machismo in these sentences, making use of theoretical-methodological tools such as the Theory of Argumentation in Discourse to analyze the statements of the accused, the arguments of the defense and the arguments of the Prosecutor's Office, which are articulated and retextualized by the judge of law in the formulation of the sentence of pronunciation. Thus, we rely theoretically on authors such as Fiorin (2015), who explains about argumentation, Ruth Amossy (2018), with argumentation in discourse, Gerda Lerner (2019) who comments on the creation of patriarchy and Mikhail Bakhtin (2006), who reflects on the issue of the gender of discourse, which results in a "relatively stable" standard form of a statement, pointing out that we communicate, speak, and write across genres. The results of the research are still partial, because now, it is in the phase of constitution of the corpus.