THE UNEASY CASE OF A PSYCHOGRAPHIC LETTER: APPLYING THE LOGOCRATIC METHOD TO THE BRAZILIAN SYSTEM OF EVIDENCE
Resumo
This paper offers a reading of the Brazilian case Public Prosecutor v. Iara Marques Barcelos under the Logocratic Method. This systematic epistemology-based method was developed by the Harvard Law School Professor Scott Brewer. It guides an analyst to assess the strengths and weaknesses of any type of argument, by helping to determine what degree of warrant the premises of an argument provide for its conclusion. This enterprise involves two main purposes. First, it aims to verify whether Brewer’s method actually may be applicable to the Brazilian legal system and, if the answer is positive, the accommodations it will require. Second, it aims to introduce a work of jurisprudence of logical form in the Brazilian legal scholarship and to draw attention of scholars and professionals about its importance. South American legal theorists have largely prioritized analytical and methodological jurisprudence under the influence of H. L. A. Hart and Ronald Dworkin, and have disregarded the role that tools of logical form play in improving the accuracy of the construction and the evaluation of interpretive and evidentiary arguments.KEYWORDS: logocratic method, jurisprudence of logical form.Referências
BRASIL. Constituição Federal de 1988. Promulgada em 5 de outubro de 1988. Disponível em <http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituição.htm>.
_______. Lei 5.869, de 11 de janeiro de 1973. Institui o Código de Processo Civil. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 17 jan. 1973.
_______. Tribunal de Justiça do Rio Grande do Sul, Processo n. 70016184012/2006, Rel. Desembargador Manuel José Martinez Lucas, Data de Julgamento 11.11.2009.
BREWER Scott, Exemplary Reasoning: Semantics, Pragmatics, and the Rational Force of Legal Argument by Analogy, Harvard Law Review Vol. 109, No. 5 (Mar., 18 1996). Artigo publicado por The Harvard Law Review Association. Disponível em: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342258?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>. Acesso em 15 out. 2015
_______ Scott, Scientific Expert Testemony and Intellectual Due Process, The Yale Law Journal Vol. 107, No. 6 (Apr., 1998). Artigo publicado por The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. Disponível em: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/797336.pdf?seq=1#page _scan_tab_contents>. Acesso em 15 out. 2015.
_______ Scott, Logocratic Method and the Analysis of Argument in Evidence, Artigo publicado 01 September 2011 no Oxford Journal Acdmic. Disponível em:<https://academic.oup.com/lpr/search-results?page=1&q=Logocratic%20method%20 and20the%20analysis%20of%20arguments%20in%20evidence&SearchSourceType=1>. Acesso em 10 out. 2015
_______ Scott, Copyright material for use in “Jurisprudence”, Class 14, Harvard Law School, Fall 2015. Disponível em: http://hls.harvard.edu/academics/curriculum/ catalog/default.aspx?year=2015-2016&faculty=Brewer%2c+Scott>. Acesso em 09 out.2015.
FOLEY Richard, Conceptual Diversity in Epistemology, in The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology, ed. Paul Mosker, p. 177 (Oxford, 2002). Disponível em: <http://library.na og.gov.mn/ebooks/The%20Oxford%20Handbook%20of%20Epistemology.pdf>. Acesso em 05 out. 2015.
LEGAL-INFORMATION-INSTITUTE. Federal Rule of Evidence 401: Test for Relevant Evidence. Disponível em: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401>. Acesso em 10 out. 2015.
LEGAL-INFORMATION-INSTITUTE. Federal Rule of Evidence 402: General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence. Disponível em: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_402 >. Acesso em 10 out. 2015.
