JURY QUESTIONS: THE EXPLICIT AND SUBJECTIVITY TRACES IN A FEMINICIDE'S JUDGEMENT

Abstract

The Jury's Plenary is the instance where occurs the summit of the judgement of defendants who were accused of practicing crimes tried and/or consummated against life. It is a Judgement Council responsability to response questions the Presiding Judge elaborates, in order to decide about defendants' future. The final veredict is the key issue of the judgement resolutive, and it indicates acquitment or conviction of defendant. Getting a record of a judgement session as a research source, this study aims analyzing questions which were elaborated by the Judge. A bibliographic and documental research made possible to define the doctrinaire and normative basis which assigned the Judge as a protagonist in elaborating questions. Taking into account the nature of the case in point, the analyzis also considered the current regulation about feminicide crimes. The Semiolinguistic Theory based the methodologic approach for this study, allowing to point out production conditions and extralinguistic effects of questions. The reaseach results indicate the Descritive Approach of Discourse Arrangement makes possible the Judge to confirm to Judgement Council a crime exists, as well as its perpetrator, and these are central judgement point. Therefore, it is possible to infer the Judge adds non-explicit subjectivity traces when he or she elaborates and provides questions. This addition derives from historic influences which feed condition of discoursive production, and knowledge and power as prerrogative the Judge has at the moment he or she exercises their full power as an enunciating person.