SOUSA, M. V. A.; http://lattes.cnpq.br/6199228266403334; SOUSA, Marcus Vinícius Almeida.
Resumo:
The law 9.099/95, known as the Law of Special Courts, emerged as a breath of fresh
air for the judiciary packed with cases, as a mechanism to give speed and economy
to procedural demands considered small. Its institutes considered to be
decriminalizers came as tools to unburden the Judiciary. An analysis is needed to
determine whether or not such institutes, although aimed at speed, are beneficial to
the defendant, enabling him to achieve the maximum principle of Criminal Procedure,
the principle of FavorKing, and this analysis is made from the point of view of game
theory, a theory that gains space in the procedural milieu by seeing each party in the
demand as a player in a strategic game. This study will explain the functions of Law
9.099/95, the Law of Special Courts, its historical conjecture and its institutes
considered decriminalizing. It will be conceptualized what would be the theory of the
games, its players, their strategies and movements. The principle of King's Favor or
Libertatis Favor will be highlighted as well as its implications seen from the point of
view of game theory. This study will use the deductive method to understand the
possibility of achieving the King's Favour principle by the institutes of Law 9.099/95.
The technique of indirect documentation will also be used through exploratory
bibliographic research with analysis of books, legislation and scientific articles
published with qualitative approach on the subject. This way, it is clear from the
research carried out, without exhausting the questions on the subject, that, through
analysis by the theory of the games, it is possible that the civil composition of
damages, the criminal transaction and the conditional suspension of the process can
promote the constitutional principle of Favor Rei or Favor Libertatis, provided that the
litigant parties, especially the player considered to be a defense, examine the
institutes as a play, i.e., a procedural movement that best fits its objectives and
strategies, making the defendant's interest prevail over the State's interest in
punishment, even if it does not consider, in the decision making, the speed and
procedural economy as primary objectives of the law 9. 099/95 that regulates special
courts, but without giving up the strategic collaboration generated among the
procedural players and in line with what advocates restorative justice and the due
legal process.