| dc.description.abstract | This paper presents the basis for building a interpretation part of Article 212 of the CPP, but that is not attached to that criminal procedure article. On the contrary, we start with a historical analysis of the evolution of inquisitorial systems (direct examinatio) and accusatory (cross-examination) on foreign law, demonstrating the magistrate's action difference in the Anglo-Saxon model, in European states and Latin American states, pointing to the paradigm shift that was required after the change given by Law 11,690 / 2008, which inserted Article 212 of the CPP and the items I and II of Article 156 of the CPP. Then we present an overlap between the Shakespearean comedy, with the work of Kantorowicz, demonstrating that the passage of positivism-exegetical, the prohibition to interpret, to positivism-normative, produced the phenomenon of the judge's discretion, the owner of the law that moves within the frame of kelseniana standard, which Warat set of theoretical common sense of lawyers, we demonstrate the relationship of the judge who begins questioning the interrogation to the pursuit of fictitious real truth. After the statement of the problem of discretion, we demonstrate the understanding of structures, along with the criticism that Gadamer makes the nefarious process of interpretation in stages. And in order to continue the process of Gadamer's understanding, stand out the structural theory of the German Friedrich Müller Jurist right so that you can identify that when the lawyers perform the interpretation of Article 212 of the CPP, given the evidentiary opening enabled by sections I and II of Article 156 of the CPC, the interpreter forgets you perform a careful reading of Article 212 of the CPP, and often mistakenly exceeds the content of the regulatory text. In the end, then present, the alternate path based on philosophical hermeneutics, with contributions of the theory of the novel in dworkiniano chain, which guarantees interpreter's commitments with integrity, and thus takes the lawyer to withdraw from the kelseniana trap mobility within the Frame rule in positivism-normative, leading to the achievement of maximum effectiveness of social justice, while respecting the content of the regulatory text of the content of Article 212 of the CPP in line with the structural theory of rule of German jurist Friedrich Müller, and not realizing interpretations, by stage, splitting understanding and application, as Hans-Georg Gadamer warns in his respectable critical to the three subtilitas, that after the cable has commitments with proper criminal procedure garantismo. | en |
