Os desafios para enfrentar a injustiça epistêmica em casos de violência doméstica no Brasil

Abstract

The study analyzed how epistemic injustice—especially in its testimonial and hermeneutical forms—affected domestic violence cases in Brazil, with impacts on the collection and assessment of evidence and on the preservation of due process of law. The study aimed to identify friction points between constitutional guarantees (adversarial proceedings, full defense, and presumption of innocence) and forensic practices, discussing avenues for bias mitigation. A bibliographic-dogmatic method was adopted, examining institutional guidelines (CNJ), the structure of criminal procedure (art. 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), precedents of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) that recognized misvaluation errors and loss of evidentiary chance, and paradigmatic cases reported by the press. It was found that the overvaluation of the credibility of certain testimonies, asymmetric skepticism toward defendants and vulnerable victims, and the trivialization of preventive detention eroded the standard of proof and improperly shifted the burden of proof. It was also verified that gender-perspective judging protocols lacked technically sound application so as not to clash with defense guarantees. It concluded by proposing criteria for qualified reasoning, reinforcement of evidence produced under adversarial scrutiny, unbiased training, and strict control of precautionary measures.