ISSN: 2691-5774
Authors: Minervino Quintiere V*
The present study intended, based on the use of the methodology related to legal consequentialism, the field of consequentialist argumentation and possible risks of its use by judges, in particular, those who perform constitutional jurisdiction and efficient speeches and the concept of purely consequentialist activism, assess whether, and to what extent, it would be possible to divide the concept of purely consequentialist activism into degrees according to the legal nature of the decision handed down within the scope of the Supreme Federal Court, more specifically, with regard to the (non) provisionality of the decision. Throughout the work it was possible to divide purely consequentialist activism into two species. The first of these, called first degree consequentialist activism, characterized by monocratic decisions or judgments that respect the limits of merit and, consequently, the principle of collegiality, and; second-degree consequentialist activism, characterized by monocratic decisions that, not meeting the limits of precautionary decisions, end up disrespecting the principle of collegiality.
Keywords: Constitutional Right; Criminal Law; Legal Dogmatics; Legal Consequentialism; Federal Court of Justice; Jurisprudence
