[RESUMO] The author maintains that the attempted coup of January 8, 2023 cannot be relativized and that there are uncontroversial facts. The text exposes that crimes of enterprise make the attempt equivalent to consummation; There are documentary and witness evidence of planning; The Supreme Court has already recognized the attempt in more than 380 cases; And the issue of the forum is decided. Given this, he argues, to deny the facts is to feed common sense against legal science.
In the 2016 movie “”, adapted from Deborah Lipstadt’s work and inspired by a real case, historian David Irving sues the author for defamation that she accused him of denying the. By circumstances of the English system, Lipstadt needs to demonstrate that Jewish genocide really happened and that Irving is a negation. At one point, the teacher, between anguish and sarcasm, asks her lawyers, “What if we can’t prove the Holocaust?”
The film deals with the clash between negationism and evidence and the consequent resistance to misinformation. Against this, the legal community produces consensus that make up the minimum certainties of what you should know about something. Consensus, however, bump into disagreements.
Therefore, these disagreements must be reasonable. The holocaust existed. The man landed on the moon. In 1964 there was a blow in Brazil. Vaccines do not cause autism. It is not reasonable to deny these facts. Remember to post that “Havan was Dilma’s daughter”?
And the attempted scam of January 8? Is it reasonable to deny? Is it possible to build narrative by denying the phenomenon? Is it possible to give things the name we want?
To see. After two years, the complaint came, a technical piece of prosecution. There are 34 involved, of which one is the former president, with the accusation of five crimes, two of them unpublished in Brazil: attempt at coup and violent abolition of the democratic state.
With over 250 pages, such as a chain novel, a technical term created by the greatest jurist of the 20th century, Ronald Dworkin, the piece contains beginning, middle and end, with the chapters forming a coherent whole. For this, the Attorney General of the Republic, makes an authentic anamnesis of the coup, having as North the legal good democracy.
To explain: In theft, the protected good is the property; In an attempt to blow, it is democracy. Therefore, Gonet starts from the serpent egg: the events of 2021 () and 2022 ( in which the former president repeated conspiracy theories to disqualify the electronic ballot boxes) aimed at democratic crumbling. The meaning of the metaphor of chain novel is that of consistency; Things do not take place in slices.
We have, thus, revelations arising from inquiry and award -winning denunciation, a set of elements that, according to Paulo Gonet, demonstrate the commission of criminal organization, property damage, deterioration, coup and abolition attempts.
There are rules of the coup, Bolsonaro meetings with ministers of state and commanders to talk about coup, the participation of black kids on 8/1, the articulated dissemination of fraud in the elections, the monitoring and the plan to kill the president -elect, the deputy, (), and a minister of the (Supreme Court),.
About the tomography of the acts that culminated in 8/1 – see that I use the expression culminated, because they already had their own legal existence regardless of 8/11 – the complaint shows that the criminal organization followed all the necessary steps to testify the elected government. Objective, which, sought with all the commitment and accomplishments of concrete acts in its benefit, could not, however, achieve the intent.
Apparently, technically Gonet uses the objective theory of the author’s plan, which is dominant and fits well in the case, stating the beginning of execution not by an isolated act, but by the set of facts linked to the ultimate goal.
Common sense and understanding of the phenomenon “blow”
If someone plans to rob a bank, buy material, do a plan and give up, nor tried to rob, because they were only preparatory acts, not punishable. Correct.
However, this reasoning cannot be applied to the crime of attempted coup. In common sense, the acts of planning, bell, mapping, etc., if there was no scam, are “the case of the bank robbery.” Therefore, they should not be punished.
For this is where common sense needs legal science: this is called “crimes of enterprise”. The trying is to consummate. Just thinking about making a blow is not a crime; However, start doing anything to try the blow already incriminates the agent.
This difficulty of understanding gives rise to legends that vitamin the denial of the coup. Many of the conduct, taken individually, are neutral actions, but, as a whole, they are the beginning of execution of trying to overthrow the elected government. There is a whole work.
There is more. The fact that we don’t have to wait for the blow to say “that was blow” is a matter of logic. In law, in some cases the barriers of punishment are anticipated, because, beforehand, conducts are already considered dangerous to the legal good, that is, both makes the person perform the whole path of crime for punishment. Therefore, the logic: only the attempt is punished – as a consummate crime.
Of course, legends are daily vitamin, as seen in the speech of the mayor, Hugo Motta (Republicans-PB), who put wood on the fire in denying that 8/1 was an attempt to blow. This feeds the hungry common sense. Just see the hermeneutic criminal of the, by which the armed forces would be moderating power.
Just like that of the military commanders, made, according to Gonet, at the behest of Bolsonaro, in which they defended the protesters who called for a blow. Here may be an omission of the complaint: the commanders committed a crime by signing the note.
What is this – the “supposed blow”?
Again, science. There are things in law that, judged, become uncontroversial. Right is like that. This should clarify legends. For example, the use of the word supposed by the press. In this case, there is a mistake that helps create negationism.
There is no alleged attempt anymore. And this is a technical-legal reason that does not depend on disagreements: in the more than 380 proceedings judged, the Supreme Court has already stated the existence of the attempted coup. Finite cause. It is no longer a matter of opinion.
Similarly, the STF has said more than 380 times that it is competent To judge, that is, the place where the judgment must occur. Therefore, it is legally a finite cause. Anyway: after the inquiry was managed by the Supreme Court, why would the forum go down to the first degree?
Also the attempt to nullify the participation of no longer depends on discussions. The Supreme Court has already decided that suspicion to the STF minister, in this case, is overdue matter. You may not agree, it’s true. But that doesn’t change what is decided. I saw a high member of the harsh criticism Moraes. Doesn’t he know how law works?
Also the controversy vitamin denunciation. It turns out that denunciation is not proof. It is a means of proof. And the agreement was made with the police, not with the judge. Technically that’s it.
Another technical issue: Gonet’s complaint is after regimental change 59 of December 2023 of the STF. At that time, it was determined that the first class of the Court is competent to judge people with a forum by prerogative of function, as well as the cases in which the original jurisdiction belongs to the STF, as is an example the attempt to coup in question, whose investigation originated in the opened inquiry in 2019 by Minister Dias Toffoli, then president of the Court, and whose rapporteur is Alexandre de Moraes.
So there are facts. Uncontroversial. What remains now is knowing, just, what was the participation of each of the 34 reported. This is debatable. Denunciation is not a sentence. Very calm. We hope for due process of law. This is the right.
The accused’s prior defenses and Gonet’s response
Nothing new arises from the response to the prosecution signed by the Attorney General. The well -known defense theses of the accused were folded broadly.
One of them, raised by Bolsonaro, the application of the judgment of guarantees to the case, was discarded by Gonet due to systemic impossibility. The separation of the judge from the judge’s instruction is impossible in cases where the forum is “privileged”. Especially in the case of the Supreme Court. After all, if the STF deals with instruction, who would judge?
A final word
8/1 is a product of relativities of all kinds, but especially the relativization of the limits of legal hermeneutics. See the Patacoadas of article 142 and the note of 11/11.
Law and democracy exist because there are limits. And since we let these limits be relativized, the price can be high. In the account, statements such as Hugo Motta, who denies hundreds of decisions of the Supreme Court of the country in which he, Motta, is mayor.
I return to the movie “Denial“. The processed teacher, at some point, felt abandoned by law. And one detail is relevant: the teacher’s defense was afraid that the jury be manipulated by the negotiations, since negationism can be a collective phenomenon.
At the time of the book, 22% of Americans doubted the Holocaust. In Brazil, in December 2024, according to Datafolha, 52% of respondents think Bolsonaro tried to strike to follow the presidency, while 39% do not believe in the hypothesis.
How do the facts demonstrate? This is the great challenge against common sense. Give things the right names.
How is it proved that those who invade powers of the Republic – and who encourage, and who architect, and who finance – tried to scam? There are video, notebooks, printed plans, audios.
Is Brazil, however, willing to say the name of the thing?
