The doubt and its development in legal cases
Introduction
The development of the event is simple. That is why, the victim feels slandered and, consequently, complains against the slanderer who becomes the accused. The victim of course, will focus on his defense and therefore argue that the imputation of the crime made by the accused was made with knowledge of his falsehood, or with reckless lack of respect for the truth, placing whether it was true or not or notThat was said or if it was only the intention of defamed the victim. Our social system to determine the guilt or innocence necessary the complete celebration of a jurisdictional process, until its completion.
Developing
In all grades and jurisdiction until it ends and within that guilt or innocence it cannot be determined by social prejudices that are incompatible with impartiality. In this way, the judicial process serves to defend the defendants who usually remain marginalized from the group and therefore isolated from the prejudice and social lynching for the benefit of the rational clarification of the reality of the facts that is the way to obtain justice and social peace and social peace and peaceNot condemning those who deserve it simply because the people probably want it. Reasonable doubt has no investigation method.
Only the hypothetical reasoning of those who are judges who in several cases are not obliged to motivate their conviction. Given this difficulty, a method has been developed that consists of weighing the probabilities wanting to say that the jury must assess the test as a whole resulting in the subjectively the possibility that seems more likely true than false than false than false. Reasonable doubt does not have any method of investigation, only the hypothetical reasoning of those who are judges who in several cases are not obliged to motivate their conviction. Given this difficulty.
A method has been developed that consists of weighing the probabilities wanting to say that the jury must assess the test as a whole resulting in the subjectively the possibility that seems more likely true than false than false than false than false. The doubt, despite everything will continue. When talking about a criminal process, it is said that the sentence is the resolution of the doubt regarding the inmate. In life in society, it has been instilled in the commitment of acts that go against law and moralto be classified only as suspicion.
Syllogism does not work to materialize doubt. Doubt is the indecision of judgment between 3 or more hypothesis. Moral certainty serves to determine the reasonable doubt, so a method to achieve it is put to the judge, this is subjectively and objectively: the subjective is referred to the judge where you have confidence to exclude the possibility of error to the fullest. The objective focuses on the observation of the judge only in what is alleged and proven in the process, which is based on the fact that there is justified confidence in the jurisdictional process as a conflict resolution mechanism. Inductive probability consists in demonstrating hypothesis.
If the contrary to it is not demonstrated and in this way, it is obvious that there is doubt. The development of the event is simple. That is why, the victim feels slandered and, consequently, complains against the slanderer who becomes the accused. The victim of course, will focus on his defense and therefore argue that the imputation of the crime made by the accused was made with knowledge of his falsehood, or with reckless lack of respect for the truth, placing whether it was true or not or notThat was said or if it was only the intention of defamed the victim. When there is a litigation or conflict, the key being the key to it, for its philosophical study the existence of the same has been separated.
When talking about a criminal process, it is said that the sentence is the resolution of the doubt regarding the inmate. The facts in a process are analyzed through deductions. If these facts do not occur according to the laws, it is considered that it is similar to when the laws are outdated, because it moves away from reality. The discourse of the procedural parties is only effective when it convinces anyone. This is inappropriate, because it means that the interpretation of the legal norm seems to be analyzed, from the beginning. The misuse of the legal norm is considered to be the one that conditions the irremediable factual determination, so that the probative activity is where the legal interpretation is analyzed.
The classification of Dubium or elements of the same are: probative element, economic element, ideological element, psychological element and legal element. In this way, it is intended to treat the elements of the trial object. The legal element is a way of ending the circle of the jurisdictional trial that is based on the normative aspect to expose the judicial resolution. Within the legal norms of interpretation it is said that judicial valuation (exegesis) must be coupled to social reality in order to find the value of justice. The classification of Dubium or elements of the same are: probative element, economic element, ideological element, psychological element and legal element.
conclusion
In this way, it is intended to treat the elements of the trial object. The presumption of innocence is a solution for due criminal process because the evidence is valued, since the judge must interpret it in favor of the inmate being that the ambiguity of the evidence must also interpret. The psychology of thought, among other aspects, have dealt with explaining the strategies of human beings in decision -making and problem solving. Therefore, it is the science that explains how a subject chooses to perform a certain action or resolves a certain one before him.
Leave feedback