O paradoxo do Tribunal do Júri no Brasil: uma crítica à subjetividade dos jurados leigos e o princípio da imparcialidade

Abstract

This paper analyzes the paradox existing in the Brazilian Jury Tribunal (Tribunal do Júri), focusing on the tension between the subjectivity of lay jurors and the constitutional principle of impartiality. The main objective of the research is to investigate how extra-legal factors, such as emotions, social stereotypes, cognitive biases, and media influence, interfere in the formation of the intimate conviction of the Sentencing Council, compromising the rationality and justice of decisions. To this end, a bibliographic research methodology was employed, through the analysis of legal doctrine, legislation, and jurisprudence, seeking to understand the nature of popular judgment and its weaknesses regarding the guarantees of the Democratic Rule of Law. The results demonstrate that the absence of a duty to substantiate verdicts, combined with the incommunicability and secrecy of voting, favors arbitrariness and allows prejudices to override the technical analysis of evidence, potentially transforming the sovereignty of verdicts into a sovereignty of arbitrariness. It is concluded that, although the Jury Tribunal is an immutable clause indispensable to participatory democracy, the current model requires urgent improvements to mitigate the vulnerability of the decision-making process. Among the improvement proposals examined, the adoption of the escabinato (mixed jury system) and the implementation of mechanisms requiring greater transparency or technical guidance stand out, aiming to harmonize popular participation with legal certainty and due process of law.