Enthymemes and Inference of Legal Principles
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21875/tjc.v3i2.23095Keywords:
Enthymemes, Legal Principles, Presumption of Innocence, Positivismo, Antipositivism.Abstract
RESUMO:
O artigo propõe um modelo de inferência de princípios jurídicos a partir de normas jurídicas, por meio da reconstrução de entimemas presentes em decisões judiciais. A ideia básica é que o principio inferido é a premissa normativa faltante de um entimema empregado em decisão judicial que aplica determinada norma. A decisão seria, assim, uma forma de endosso autoritativo do conteúdo do princípio. O modelo é aplicado sobre a inferência do princípio de presunção de inocência na decisão do Supremo Tribunal Federal acerca da possibilidade de execução de sentença penal condenatória antes de seu trânsito em julgado. O artigo discute implicações desse modelo de inferência para o debate entre positivismo e anti-positivismo.
ABSTRACT:
The paper proposes a model to infer legal principles from norms, consisting in the reconstruction of enthymemes in judicial decisions. The basic idea is that the inferred principle is the missing normative premise of an enthymeme employed by a judicial decision, which applies the legal norm at stake. The decision would then be a form of endorsement of the content of the legal principle. The model is illustrated by the inference of the content of the principle of presumption of innocence in the Brazilian Supreme Court Decision on the possibility of execution of a criminal sentence before its final revision by the superior courts. The paper discusses the implications of the model within the positivism/antipositivism debate.
References
ALCHOURRÓN, Carlos; BULYGIN, Eugenio. Normative Systems. New York: Springer, 1971.
ALEXY, Robert. Teoria dos Direitos Fundamentais. São Paulo: Malheiros, 2008.
ALONSO, Juan Pablo. Principios implícitos y fuentes sociales del derecho. Doxa, n. 41, 2018.
BENCH-CAPON, Trevor J. M.; SARTOR, Giovanni. A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values. Artificial Intelligence, v. 150, n. 1-2, p. 97–143, 2003.
BERMAN, Donald H.; HAFNER, Carole D. Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p. 50-59, 1993.
BRANDOM, Robert B. Making it explicit: reasoning, representing & discursive commitment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998.
BURNYEAT, Myles F. Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Logic of Persuasion. In: FURLEY, David J.; NAHEMAS, Alexander (orgs.). Aristotle’s Rethoric: Philosophical Essays. Princeton: Princeton university Press, Princeton, p. 3-56, 2015.
CHELLAS, Brin F. Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
DAVIDSON, Donald. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.
DICKSON, Julie. Evaluation and legal theory. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2001;
DWORKIN, Ronald. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. FULLER, Lon L. Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart. Harvard Law Review, v. 71, n. 4, p. 630–672, 1958.
GUASTINI, Riccardo. A Realistic View on Law and Legal Cognition. Revus, n. 27, 45–54, 2015.
GAMUT, L T F. Logic, Language and Meaning. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991.
GRICE, Paul. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989.
GUASTINI, Ricardo. Distinguendo. Studi di teori e metateoria del diritto. Torino: Giappichelli, 1996.
GUASTINI, Ricardo. Contribución a la teoria del ordenamento jurídico. In: BELTRÁN, Jordi Ferrer e RATTI, Giovanni B (Orgs.). El realismo jurídico genovês. Madrid: Marcial Pons, p. 81-116, 2011.
GUASTINI, Ricardo. Defeasibility, Axiological Gaps, and Interpretation. The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility, n. 9, p. 182– 192, 2012.
GUASTINI, Ricardo. Il realismo giuridico ridefinito. Revus, n. 19, p. 97-111, 2013;
GUASTINI, Ricardo. A Realistic View on Law and Legal Cognition. Revus, n. 27, 45–54, 2015.
HAAGE, Jaap. Studies in Legal Logic. Berlin: Springer, 2005.
MODGIL, Sanjay; PRAKKEN, Henry. A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artificial Intelligence, v. 195, p. 361-397, 2013.
HARMAN, Gilbert. The inference to the best explanation. Philosophical Review, v. 74, n. 1, 1965.
HART, Herbert L A. Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. Harvard Law Review, v. 71, n. 4, p. 593–629, 1958.
HART, Herbert L A. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
HARTSHORNE, Charles; HEISS, Paul; BURKS, Arthur (orgs.). The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931-1958.
HILPINEN, Risto. Aristotelian Syllogistic as a Foundation of Peirce’s Theory of Reasoning. In: SFENDONI-MENTZOU, Demetra (org.). Aristotle and Contemporary Science, vol. 1. New York: Peter Lang, 2000.
HILPINEN, Risto. Peirce’s Logic. In: GABBAY, Dov M.; WOODS, John (orgs.). Handbook of the History of Logic, vol. 3, The Rise of Modern Logic: From Leibniz to Frege. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2004.
HILPINEN, Risto; McNAMARA, Paul. Deontic Logic: historical survey and introduction. In: GABBAY, Dov; HORTY, Jeff; PARENT, Xavier et al. Handbook of Deontic Logic and Normative Systems. London: College Publication, 2013.
HINTIKKA, J.; HALONEN, I. Epistemic Logic. In: CRAIG, Edward (Org.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 1. London: Routledge, 1998.
HINTIKKA, Jaakko. What Is Abduction? The Fundamental Problem of Contemporary Epistemology. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, vol. 34, n. 3, 1998.
JOSEPHSON, John R.; JOSEPHSON, Susan G. (orgs.). Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
KELSEN, Hans. Teoria Geral das Normas. Porto Alegre: Sergio Antonio Fabris, 1986.
LOSANO, Mario. La dottrina pura del diritto dal logicismo all’irrazionlismo. In: KELSEN, Hans. Teoria Generale delle Norme. Torino: Giulio Einaudi Editore, 1985.
LYCAN, William G. Judgement and Justification. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
MACAGNO, Fabricio; DAMELE, Giovanni. The dialogical force of implicit premises: presumptions in enthymemes. Informal Logic, v. 33, n. 3, p. 365-393, 2013.
MACCORMICK, Neil. Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.
MARANHÃO, Juliano S. A. Von Wright e o Silogismo Prático como Método de Compreensão da Ação. Cognitio, v. 7, n. 2, p. 261–275, 2006.
MARANHÃO, Juliano S. A. Coherencia en el Derecho: conservadurismo y fidelidad a la base de reglas. Discusiones, vol. X, p. 179-215, 2011.
MARANHÃO, Juliano S. A. Positivismo jurídico lógico-inclusivo. São Paulo: Marcial Pons, 2012.
MARANHÃO, Juliano S. A. Reconfiguração conceitual? O Direito digital como metáfora de si mesmo. In: FONTES, Pedro; CAMPOS, Ricardo; BARBOSA, Samuel (Orgs.). Teorias contemporâneas do direito: o direito e as incertezas normativas. Curitiba: Juruá, p. 97-128, 2016.
MARMOR, Andrei. Interpretation and Legal Theory. Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2005.
MARMOR, Andrei. Exclusive Legal Positivism. In: COLEMAN, Jules L; HIMMA, Kenneth Einar; SHAPIRO, Scott J. The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
NAVARRO, Pablo; RODRÍGUEZ, Jorge. Entailed Norms and the Systematization of Law. In: ARASZKIEWICZ, Michael; PLESZKA, Krzysztof (Orgs.). Logic in the Theory and Practice of Lawmaking. New York: Springer, 2015.
PRAKKEN, Henry; SARTOR, Giovanni. Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game. Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 6, n. 2-4, p. 231-287, 1998.
RAZ, Joseph. The Authority of Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.
RAZ, Joseph. Dworkin: A New Link in the Chain. California Law Review, v. 74, n. 3, 1986.
RAZ, Joseph. Practical Reason and Norms. Princeton e Oxford: Princeton University Press, 1990.
RAZ, Joseph. Ethics in the public domain: essays in the Morality of Law and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
SCHAUER, Frederick. Playing by the Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision-Making in Law and in Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.
SCHAUER, Frederick. The Limited Domain of the Law. Virginia Law Review, v. 90, n. 7, p. 1909-1956, 2004.
SOLUM, Lawrence B. The Interpretation-Construction Distinction. Constitutional Commentary, n. 27, 95–118, 2010.
WALTON, Douglas; MACAGNO, Fabricio. Enthymemes, argumentation schemes, and topics. Logique et Analyse, n. 205, p. 39-56, 2009.
WALTON, Douglas; REED, Chris A. Argumentation Schemes and Enthymems. Synthese, v. 145, n. 3, p. 339-370, 2005.
WITTGENSTEIN, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations, ed. G.E.M. Anscombe and R. Rhees, tradução de G.E.M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.
ZORRILLA, David Martínez. Conflitos constitucionales, ponderación e indeterminación normativa. Madri-Barcelona-Buenos Aires: Marcial Pons, 2007.
DECISÕES JUDICIAIS:
BRASIL. Superior Tribunal de Justiça. Súmula Nº 7. Disponível em: < http://www.stj.jus.br/docs_internet/ VerbetesSTJ_asc.pdf>. Acesso em: 17 abr. 2019.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Súmula Nº 279. Disponível em: < http://www.stf.jus.br/portal/ jurisprudencia/menuSumarioSumulas.asp?sumula=2174>. Acesso em: 17 abr. 2019.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Tribunal Pleno. Habeas Corpus Nº 72.102. Relator Min. Celso de Mello. Julgado em 14/02/1995. Disponível em: Acesso em: 17 abr. 2019.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Tribunal Pleno. Habeas Corpus Nº 84.079. Relator Min. Eros Grau. Julgado em 05/02/2009. Disponível em: <http://www.stf.jus.br/arquivo/ cms/noticiaNoticiaStf/anexo/ementa84078.pdf> Acesso em: 17 abr. 2019.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Habeas Corpus Nº 126.292. Relator Min. Teori Zavascki. Julgado em 17/02/2016. Disponível em: <http://portal.stf.jus.br/ processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=4697570>. Acesso em: 17 abr. 2019.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Habeas Corpus Nº 152.752. Relator Min. Edson Fachin. Julgado em 04/04/2018. Disponível em: <https://portal.stf.jus.br/ processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=5346092>. Acesso em: 17 abr. 2019.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms:
1. The authors maintain the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License that allows the sharing of the work with recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are allowed to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g., publishing in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or as a personal page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this may generate productive changes, as well as increase the impact and citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Brazil License.
