Supporting evidence

   supporting evidence

ID Semântico:	marcilio:supporting-evidence
Classe:	Direito Comparado
Nível Técnico:	Profissional
Origem do Termo:	Inglês
Áreas de Foco:	Direito Internacional, Direito Comparado, Inglês Jurídico
Jurisdição:	EUA/Brasil

Progresso do texto
		Início
		Básico
		Criação
		Desenvolvimento
		Maturação
		Revisão
		Desenvolvido
		Finalização
		Abrangente

Significado Prático

1. supporting evidence = prova corroborativa (da\ncolaboração premiada).\nTag #corroborativo\n\nArtigo completo:\nJail or no jail?\nPlea bargains save time and money\nbut are too easily abused\nAs an American idea spreads,\ninnocent people are at risk\nPrint edition | Leaders\nNov 9th 2017\nTHE elements that make up a\ncriminal-justice system are familiar\nfrom a thousand courtroom dramas.\nDetectives interview witnesses and\nexamine crime scenes. Forensic\nscientists coax secrets from\nbloodstains and cigarette ash. Judges\n\nand juries weigh the facts and\npronounce on guilt and innocence.\nBut in many countries, behind this\nsystem lies a quicker, rougher one. It\nis plea-bargaining, in which\nprosecutors press lesser charges or\nask for a lighter sentence (pena mais\nbranda) in return for a defendant\npleading guilty or incriminating\nothers. Long crucial to the operation\nof American justice, this shadow\nsystem is now going global (see\narticle). One study of 90 countries\nfound that just 19 permitted plea\nbargains in 1990. Now 66 do. In\nmany countries, including England\nand Australia, pleas now account for\na majority of guilty verdicts. In\nAmerican federal courts the share is\nclose to 100%.\nThe result sometimes bears only a\npassing resemblance to justice.\nProsecutors may heap charge upon\ncharge so that defendants risk\ndecades behind bars if they decide to\nface trial. Even when cases are\nflimsy, defendants may see little\noption but to plead guilty. A defence\nlawyer who offers a witness $1 to\nexonerate his client commits bribery.\nA prosecutor who threatens the\nsame witness with prison if he does\nnot give damning evidence is just\ndoing his job. Is that fair?\n\nThe fiction behind plea-bargaining is\nthat innocent people will stand fast\nand trust the courts to exonerate\nthem. The truth is that many will not.\nOf the Americans convicted of rape\nor murder and later cleared, a\nsizeable share had pleaded guilty.\nPre-trial detention (prisão\npreventiva; prisão cautelar) increases\nthe risk: people may say anything to\nget out of jail. Studies by\npsychologists have shown that\nstudents will confess to academic\ntransgressions they did not commit\nto avoid even minor penalties.\nPlea-bargaining is too useful to be\nabandoned. With no incentive to\nplead guilty, even criminals caught\nred-handed (em #flagrante) would\nopt for a trial, since a tiny chance of\ngetting off is better than none.\nJustice would be slower and pricier.\nMore victims would have to relive\ntheir trauma in the witness box\n(assento das testemunhas [no\njulgamento]). And it would remove\nan important weapon in the fight\nagainst organised crime, namely the\nability to reward minor figures for\nhelping to take down kingpins. But if\nplea bargains are to serve justice, not\nsubvert it, they must be subject to\nclear constraints.\nTo start with only modest incentives\nshould be offered. Small reductions\n\nin sentences are enough to induce\nguilty defendants to waive trial. But\nas discounts become more generous,\nfalse confessions become more\ncommon. And incentives for\nincriminating others should come\nwith strict conditions. Brazil shows\nthe way. Its recent extension of plea-\nbargaining has enabled prosecutors\nto go after corrupt politicians. But it\nguards against perjury by requiring\nsupporting evidence for statements\nincriminating others and by making it\nclear that if a defendant is caught in\na lie, the deal is off.\nA plea for common sense\nAbove all, plea bargains must not be\nallowed to warp criminal-justice\nsystems. In countries such as\nAmerica where prosecutors have\nbroad leeway, crimes are often\nloosely defined and sentences harsh.\nThis is no accident: these are the\ntools used to browbeat defendants\ninto guilty pleas (#confissão). When\nfew cases are tested in trials, police\nmay become sloppy, lawyers lazy and\njudges capricious. When the\ninnocent are bullied into trading\naway their day in court (acesso à\njustiça), justice is weakened for\neveryone.\n__________________________\n___________________________\n\n\n\nTraduza as expressões abaixo por TEORIA DE....\nEvite traduzir literalmente por "instrução" da\navestruz, etc, pois no Brasil não há júri em crime de\nlavagem de dinheiro.\n#Instruction e #direction são apenas para o júri, no\nmomento em que o juiz presidente instrui os\njurados sobre conceitos jurídicos.\n\nPortanto, #ostrich instruction é #TEORIA da\navestruz.\n

Simplificação de Linguagem (Lei 15.263/2025)

Abaixo, a comparação prática de aplicação do termo sob a ótica do acesso à justiça:

Redação Formal (Juridiquês)	Redação Cidadã (Linguagem Simples)
"O correspondente para o termo 'supporting evidence' em processos transnacionais..."	"#supporting evidence = prova corroborativa (da..."

Detalhes Classificatórios

• Áreas do Direito associadas: Direito Internacional, Direito Comparado, Inglês Jurídico
• Classe Terminológica: Direito Comparado
• Natureza Jurídica: Termo e Conceito Estrangeiro
• Nível Técnico sugerido: Profissional

Aspectos Linguísticos

• Idioma originário: Inglês
• Etimologia: Origem da linguagem jurídica norte-americana / direito comparado.
• Pronúncia ou leitura recomendada: supporting evidence

Referência Bibliográfica

• Dicionário Marcílio Atualizado Constantemente (2024)