| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 919.23 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
O objeto da presente dissertação é a insatisfação de parte da população relativamente à inadmissibilidade de prova. A intensificação de notícias sobre crimes aliada às novas formas de interação social, como as redes sociais, permite-nos ter maior conhecimento da vontade de cada cidadão, pois cada um passa a ter um espaço livre para poder manifestar a sua opinião. A perspetiva de alguns cidadãos é de que o sistema jurídico-penal protege em demasia o arguido em detrimento da descoberta da verdade. Assim, recorremos a alguns comentários sobre casos mediáticos atuais, mormente o caso de gravações ilícitas ao Ministro das Infraestruturas e da Habitação, de utilização de escutas telefónicas no caso de Ihor Homeniuk, de delação premiada na Operação Marquês e da possibilidade de aproveitamento de prova na Operação Ciberduna. Posteriormente, comparamos estes pontos de vista com as respostas que o nosso ordenamento jurídico tem para oferecer. Concluímos que a utilização de alguns métodos de obtenção de prova mais restritivos dos direitos fundamentais, como os métodos “ocultos”, deve ser feito apenas excecionalmente e sob determinadas condições, evitando-se cair num regime radical de eliminação completa das garantias processuais do arguido.
The object of the present dissertation is the dissatisfaction of the population in relation to the inadmissibility of evidence. The intensification of news regarding crimes, together with new ways of social interaction throughout social networks, allow us to a wider knowledge concerning will of each citizen as each individual has an open space to express his opinion. The perspective of some citizens is that the legal penal system seems to excessively protect the accused individual rights in detriment of the revealing the truth. Therefore, we used some comments regarding some mediatic recent cases, among other the recent illegal recordings of our Minister of Home and Infrastructures, the wiretapping use in the case of Ihor Homeniuk, the plea bargaining use in Operação Marquês, and the use of the illegal gathered proof in Operação Ciberduna. Subsequently, we compared these perspectives with our legal order potentially available responses. We have concluded that, the use of more restrictive methods in obtaining evidence concerning fundamental rights, such as “hidden” methods, should only be exceptionally applied and under exceptionally predetermined conditions, in order to avoid a fall into a radical which would completely eliminate the accused process guarantees.
The object of the present dissertation is the dissatisfaction of the population in relation to the inadmissibility of evidence. The intensification of news regarding crimes, together with new ways of social interaction throughout social networks, allow us to a wider knowledge concerning will of each citizen as each individual has an open space to express his opinion. The perspective of some citizens is that the legal penal system seems to excessively protect the accused individual rights in detriment of the revealing the truth. Therefore, we used some comments regarding some mediatic recent cases, among other the recent illegal recordings of our Minister of Home and Infrastructures, the wiretapping use in the case of Ihor Homeniuk, the plea bargaining use in Operação Marquês, and the use of the illegal gathered proof in Operação Ciberduna. Subsequently, we compared these perspectives with our legal order potentially available responses. We have concluded that, the use of more restrictive methods in obtaining evidence concerning fundamental rights, such as “hidden” methods, should only be exceptionally applied and under exceptionally predetermined conditions, in order to avoid a fall into a radical which would completely eliminate the accused process guarantees.
Description
Keywords
Prova proibida Inadmissibilidade de prova Insatisfação da população Diminuição das garantias processuais do arguido Forbidden evidence Inadmissible evidence Population dissatisfaction Accused process guarantees decrease