Credibilidade institucional e justiça epistêmica: tensões entre fé pública e a presunção de inocência no testemunho policial

Abstract

The work is structured on the need to understand the tensions between the presumption of innocence and public faith in the Brazilian criminal process, especially when this is attributed to police testimony, and to evaluate the consequences of these imbalances for the rationality of evidence and for constitutional guaranties. The problem to be addressed is: to what extent has the presumption of veracity conferred upon the state’s word operated as an authority shortcut, practically emptying the epistemic and guarantor function of the presumption of innocence and producing epistemic injustice in the distribution of credibility between the prosecution and the defense? The adopted methodology follows a qualitative approach, combining bibliographic and documentary research around the theory of presumptions, the epistemology of evidence, and the concept of epistemic injustice, as well as the analysis of paradigm decisions from higher courts regarding the sufficiency of police testimony, the need for corroboration, and special scrutiny of official evidence. The research finds that the idea of public faith, when handled as an almost absolute presumption of truth, reinforces excessive credibility in favor of the police narrative, generates structural deficits concerning defendants and witnesses, and contributes to selectivity in the criminal justice system, although a recent movement to contain these effects in jurisprudence is observed. The data analyzed demonstrate that a reconfiguration of public faith is necessary, in order to create mechanisms compatible with the presumption of innocence, thus qualifying the legal due process