Entre a lei e o juiz: Os processos decisórios na definição de penas
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EnglishThis paper presents an analytical framework to observe theoretical and empirical aspects of sentencing. More specifically this paper addresses the cases in which the judge considers mandatory minimum sentences to high and therefore inadequate to a particular offence and offender. To develop this point, the paper discusses Superior Court decisions from Brazil and Canada. portuguesO objetivo deste texto e contribuir para a construcao de um quadro analitico para observar os processos decisorios em materia de penas. Mais especificamente, o texto busca oferecer subsidios para a reflexao sobre as situacoes nas quais o(a) juiz(juiza), diante das situacoes concretas do caso, considera muito elevada, e, portanto, injusta, a pena definida abstratamente pelo legislador. Para avancar sobre esta questao, o texto discute: (i) a Sumula 231 do STJ – que impede a reducao da pena aquem do minimo legal pela incidencia de atenuantes – e sua confirmacao pelo STF e (ii) uma decisao judicial canadense que permite observar a possibilidade de construir decisoes sobre a pena com base na lei, na constituicao e na jurisprudencia, sem ter como ponto de partida a pena minima prevista no tipo penal
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it