O viés autoritário da aplicação do in dubio pro societate na decisão de pronúncia pela jurisprudência do Tribunal de Justiça do Estado do Ceará

Abstract

The application of in dubio pro societate in the pronúncia decision within the jury trial procedure is a controversial topic within the legal community, as it is a widely adopted measure that is nonetheless broadly considered incompatible with the Brazilian legal system. The central objective of this study is to analyze whether the application of in dubio pro societate in the case law of the Ceará State Court of Justice reveals an authoritarian bias. To this end, through bibliographic research, the study conducts an examination of the compatibility of this legal maxim with the Brazilian legal framework and investigates its relationship with the historical-sociological concept of authoritarianism. Subsequently, the study presents an overview of the extent to which in dubio pro societate has been adopted in the jurisprudence of the Ceará State Court of Justice, based on descriptive-documentary research focused on recent decisions issued by the court in the context of Recurso em Sentido Estrito (Interlocutory Appeals). The conclusions reached indicate that the maxim, widely adopted by the Ceará State Court of Justice, reflects the existence of an authoritarian bias in its application by the Ceará judiciary, as it is a thesis whose authoritarian origins render it incompatible with the Brazilian legal system.