LINGUISTIC PRAGMATICS IN THE CRIMINAL JURY PROCEDURE

AN ANALYSIS OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RATIONAL DISCOURSE IN SUPRA-LEGAL ACQUITTAL DEFENSE THESIS

Abstract

From linguistic pragmatics and the principles of full defense and the sovereignty of verdicts, which permeate the democratic character of the jury court, this study explores the importance of rational discourse in the context of an open, public, and transparent procedure, as a means to produce argumentatively grounded decisions that reduce arbitrariness and subjectivist isolationism. To this end, this paper defends the communicability of jurors, with the introduction of a bill or, above all, with the use of new resources derived from the philosophy of language. Therefore, this article intends to establish a legal and philosophical incursion, in a sense that it deepens the thesis defended herein, as it questions the possibility of a participative process capable of altering the paradigm of subjective and free conviction by a linguistic procedure that supports discursively justified public decisions.