Ulisses a caminho de Ítaca: a racionalidade probatória na decisão de pronúncia em diálogo (necessário) entre a teoria e a prática

Abstract

This study examines the role and legitimacy of the pronúncia decision within the Brazilian criminal justice system, understood as part of criminal judicial protection and the constitutional guarantees that structure due process of law. The focus lies on the analysis of evidentiary rationality and penal garantism as parameters for controlling the decision responsible for sending the accused to trial before the Jury Court. The central question guiding the investigation is the following: what function should the pronúncia decision perform within the machinery of the justice system, and which evidentiary elements and grounds are indispensable to confer legitimacy upon it, in light of Luigi - Rationality? The study begins with the hypothesis that, under the current Brazilian legislative and jurisprudential configuration, these theoretical frameworks have not been properly applied in pronúncia decisions, which undermines the democratic Penal Garantism, understood as a critical theory in power, and on Ferrercontrol of decisions and the establishment of minimum evidentiary standards as criteria of legitimacy. The research is part of the Graduate Program in Fundamental Rights (PPGD/FDV), within the line of Justice System and the Implementation of Fundamental Rights. Methodologically, the study adopts the inductive method, starting from the observation of concrete cases, decisions of the higher courts, and doctrinal positions to assess whether pronúncia decisions meet rational and garantist requirements. The methodological design combines conceptual, doctrinal, and jurisprudential analysis, using bibliographical and documentary sources, including theses and dissertations produced at FDV, classical works by the referenced authors, specialized national and international literature, in addition to a critical analysis of decisions from the STJ and STF concerning the pronúncia decision and its evidentiary support. The objectives of the work are: (a) to present, in a descriptive and critical manner, the main aspects of Penal Garantism and Evidentiary Rationality as theoretical frameworks; (b) to examine the pronúncia decision, its origins, and its normative evolution in Brazilian law, identifying and critically analyzing doctrinal and jurisprudential debate on the topic; and (c) to discuss, from a perspective that articulates law, literature, theory, and legal practice, the implications of garantist evidentiary rationality when applied to the pronúncia decision. The study intends to demonstrate that, within the current model, pronúncia still relies on a subjectivist logic of decision-making, with low legal and epistemic adherence from the moment information enters the process to its assessment, which contradicts the garantist paradigm and evidentiary rationality. The study aims to contribute to the improvement of decision-making practices within the Brazilian criminal justice system by suggesting rational and garantist evidentiary criteria as a condition for the validity of the pronúncia decision, in alignment with SDG 16. The anticipated limitations include the temporal and institutional scope of the jurisprudential analysis, without prejudice to proposing future research aimed at empirically incorporating evidentiary rationality and penal garantism into Brazilian criminal procedure.