A (in) constitucionalidade do in dubio pro societate e a questão do standard probatório nas decisões de pronúncia : uma análise da jurisprudência do STJ de 2017 a 2023

Abstract

The present work consists of analyzing whether in dubio pro societate, when used as a decisionmaking criterion in judicial pronouncement decisions, is compatible with the dictates of the Constitution of the Federative Republic of 1988, presenting itself as a valid evidentiary standard in the Brazilian legal system. To this end, the study will be based on the understanding of evidence in criminal proceedings, with the premise of distributing the burden of proof, based on the analysis of the main systems of rational assessment of evidence. This will lead to a discussion around the need to define a minimum evidentiary standard for judicial decisions and, consequently, it will be possible to infer whether or not the in dubio pro societate fulfills these minimum required decision-making criteria. Next, the (in)compatibility of in dubio pro societate with the guarantee of the presumption of innocence will be analyzed, from which its logical consequence, in dubio pro reo, arises. Furthermore, it will be analyzed whether in dubio pro societate is compatible with the right to evidence, in criminal proceedings, and with the constitutional duty to motivate judicial decisions. Finally, based on an analysis developed from a bibliographical and jurisprudential review, we seek to assess whether or not in dubio pro societate is unconstitutional, notably with regard to its application as a decision-making criterion in pronouncement decisions, in processes submitted to the special rite of the Jury Court.