An issue that seemed overcome for a long time–letting the transmissions of judgment by TV Justice-returned to light with the installation of the created by the São Paulo sectional of OAB (Brazilian Bar Association).
The suggestion was exhibited on Monday (23) by lawyer José Eduardo Cardozo, former Minister of Justice.
Cardozo says he gets annoyed when he records an oral support and doesn’t know who will watch.
It is claimed that live display may influence the performance of ministers, lawyers and parts.
An idea raised in the committee would be to maintain the transmissions for debates on abstract constitutional issues, but to interrupt them in the debate of concrete cases, especially in criminal matters.
The debate forgets that former President Jair Bolsonaro and the other participants of the coup plot would be denounced if the inquiry were not broadcast on TV Justice.
The importance of the recordings was reaffirmed the day after the OAB-SP commission.
Minister Alexandre de Moraes did not welcome the lawsuits of lawyers to record his clients with the defendant Lieutenant Colonel Mauro Cid. Moraes understood that the recording could compromise the instruction of criminal proceedings.
a lawyer for General Walter Braga Netto, former defense minister, said the rapporteur’s decision violated the defense’s prerogative.
In July 2021, lawyers Augusto de Arruda Botelho and Lenio Luiz Streck diverged about TV Justice broadcasts. Botelho and Streck are collaborators of the prerogative group, as are former minister Cardozo.
The newspaper asked, “Should the Supreme Court end the live broadcasts of court judgments?”
Botelho expressed concern about the spectacularization of justice: “Approaching the Supreme Court of the people is completely different from making our highest court a reality show.”
Streck disagreed: “Transparency never hurts. When I was a prosecutor, the juries were transmitted by the radio. It helped people understand, at least a little, what is justice. And this is the case of TV Justice.”
According to him, “the image conveyed by TV is important for the preservation of the institutional memory of justice and the improvement of democracy.”
Society would unaware of the backstage of the monthly judgment if there was no direct transmission on TV Justice.
Press coverage over the judiciary evolved thanks to the decision of the rapporteur, Minister Joaquim Barbosa, who broke the confidentiality of the criminal action. He allowed journalists to consult the records in his office. He uttered votes in understandable language to the layman.
Why prevent society from seeing Barbosa challenge Gilmar Mendes: “Get out, Minister Gilmar. Get to the street! Do what I do. You are not on the street. You are in the media by destroying the credibility of the Brazilian judiciary.”
Why forbid the citizen to see Minister Luís Roberto Barroso claim that Gilmar Mendes is “a horrible person, mixing evil with delay, pinches of psychopathy”?
The citizen has the right to evaluate how law firm behaves in judgments. It is important to distinguish a well -founded oral support from the Authority to flatter judges.
Simultaneous transmission of sessions may highlight the contribution of law to slow justice, which does not punish powerful thanks to Chicanas and perpetuating processes.
Transparency also allows you to identify ministers who abuse monocratic decisions and shelter processes.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
