Neurodireito e neurociência do livre-arbítrio
uma revisão crítica e apontamentos para o Direito Penal
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46274/1809-192XRICP2023v8n1p91-120Palavras-chave:
neurodireito, neuroética, livre arbítrio, neurociências, paradigma de LibetResumo
Devido ao advento das neurociências modernas, várias disciplinas científicas desenvolveram teorias, perspectivas e metodologias inteiramente novas. Os substanciais avanços e as descobertas nesta área nas últimas décadas, especialmente no que diz respeito à cognição e ao comportamento humano, orientaram o curso de muitas áreas de pesquisa tradicionais e deram origem a outras, como a neuroeconomia, a neuroética e a neuropolítica. Aqui, damos uma olhada em algumas das características gerais da crescente área do neurodireito, um campo interdisciplinar que se concentra na interseção entre o direito e as neurociências. Em seguida, discutimos a neurociência do livre-arbítrio, um dos tópicos mais impactantes e prementes no debate do neurodireito, com atenção especial ao paradigma experimental de Libet, bem como desenvolvimentos científicos recentes e novas interpretações que questionam as suposições habituais sobre ele. Este debate tem impactos diretos sobre o Direito Penal, especialmente porque o conceito de livre-arbítrio representa um papel fundacional em várias das teorias penais tradicionais.
Referências
ALCES, Peter. The Moral Conflict of Law and Neuroscience. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 2018.
AMIRIAN, Justin. Weighing the admissibility of fMRI technology under FRE 403: For the law, fMRI changes everything – and nothing. Fordham Urban Law Journal, [s.l.], v. 41, n. 2, p. 715-770, 2013. Disponível em: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol41/iss2/1. Acesso em: 10 jul. 2023.
BALAGUER, Mark. Replies to McKenna, Pereboom, and Kane. Philosophical Studies, [s.l.], v. 169, n. 1, p. 71-92, 2014. DOI: 10.1007/s11098-012-9893-8.
BARD, Imre; GASKELL, George; ALLANSDOTTIR, Agnes; CUNHA, Rui Vieira da; EDUARD, Peter; HAMPEL. Juergen; HILDT, Elisabeth; HOFMAIER, Christian; KRONGERGER, Nicole; LAURSEN, Sheena; MEIJKNECHT, Anna; NORDAL, Salvör; QUINTANILHA, Alexandre; REVUELTA, Gema; SALADIÉ, Núria; SÁNDOR, Judit; SANTOS, Júlio Borlido; SEYRINGER, Simone; SINGH, Ilina; SOMSEN, Han; TOONDERS, Winnie; TORGERSEN, Helge; TORRE, Vincent; VARJU, Martón; ZWART, Hub. Bottom Up Ethics – Neuroenhancement in Education and Employment. Neuroethics, [s.l.], v. 11, n. 3, p. 309-322, 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s12152-018-9366-7.
BELCHER, Annabelle; SINNOT-ARMSTRONG, Walter. Neurolaw. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science, [s.l.], v. 1, n. 1, p. 18-22, 2010. DOI: 10.1002/wcs.8.
BENNETT, Maxwell R.; HACKER, Peter. Philosophical foundations of neuroscience. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2003.
BENNETT, Maxwell R.; DENNETT, Daniel; HACKER, Peter; SEARLE, John. Neuroscience and philosophy: Brain, mind, and language. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.
BRASS, Marcel; FURSTENBERG, Ariel; MELE, Alfred R. Why neuroscience does not disprove free will. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, [s.l.], v. 102, p. 251-263, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.04.024.
BRASS, Marcel; LYNN, Margaret T.; DEMANET, Jelle; RIGONI, Davide. Imaging volition: what the brain can tell us about the will. Experimental Brain Research, [s.l.], v. 229, n. 3, p. 301-312, 2013. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-013-3472-x.
BUCKHOLTZ, Joshua W.; ASPLUND, Christopher L.; DUX, Paul E.; ZALD, David H.; GORE, John C. JONES, Owen; MAROIS, René. The neural correlates of third-party punishment. Neuron, [s.l.], v. 60, n. 5, p. 930-940, 2008. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.016.
BUNGE, Mario. The mind-body problem: a psychobiological approach. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press Inc, 2014.
BURGET, Mirjam; BARDONE, Emanuele; PEDASTE, Margus. Definitions and conceptual dimensions of responsible research and innovation: a literature review. Science and Engineering Ethics, [s.l.], v. 23, n. 1, p. 1-19, 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1.
CAMERER, Colin; LOEWENSTEIN, George; PRELEC, Drazen. Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics. Journal of Economic Literature, [s.l.], v. 43, n. 1, p. 9-64, 2005.
CARDOSO, Renato César. Neurolaw and the Neuroscience of Free Will: an Overview. Revista de Filosofía, [s.l.], v. 21, p. 55-81, 2021. DOI: 10.46583/scio_2021.21.843.
CARUSO, Gregg D. (ed.). Exploring the illusion of free will and moral responsibility. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2013.
CATLEY, Paul. The Future of Neurolaw. European Journal of Current Legal Issues, [s.l.], v. 22, n. 2, a. 487, 2016. Disponível em: http://webjcli.org/index.php/webjcli/article/view/487. Acesso em: 10 jul. 2023.
CHANDLER, Jennifer A. Neurolaw and neuroethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, [s.l.], v. 27, n. 4, p. 590-598, 2018. DOI: 10.1017/S0963180118000117.
CHURCHLAND, Patricia S. Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind-brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989.
CLAUSEN, Jens; LEVY, Neil (ed.). Handbook of Neuroethics. Heidelberg: Springer Netherlands, 2015.
CRICK, Francis; CLARK, J. The astonishing hypothesis. Journal of Consciousness Studies, [s.l.], v. 1, n. 1, p. 10-16, 1994.
DARBY, R. Ryan; JOUTSA, Juho; BURKE, Matthew J.; FOX, Michael D. Lesion network localization of free will. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 115, n. 42, p. 10792-10797, 2018. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1814117115.
DECETY, Jean; WHEATLEY, Thalia (ed.). The moral brain: A multidisciplinary perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2015.
DENNETT, Daniel. Consciousness explained. London: Penguin UK, 1993.
DOMINIK, Tomáš; DOSTÁL, Daniel; ZIELINA, Martin; ŠMAHAJ, Jan; SEDLÁČKOVÁ, Zuzana; PROCHÁZKA, Roman. Libet’s experiment: Questioning the validity of measuring the urge to move. Consciousness and Cognition, [s.l.], v. 49, p. 255-263, 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2017.01.017.
FARAHANY, Nita A. The battle for your brain: defending the right to think freely in the age of neurotechnology. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2023.
FERNANDEZ-DUQUE, Diego; EVANS, Jessica; CHRISTIAN, Colton; HODGES, Sara. Superfluous Neuroscience Information Makes Explanations of Psychological Phenomena More Appealing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, [s.l.], v. 27, n. 5, p. 926-944, 2015. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00750.
FISCHER, John Martin; KANE, Robert; PEREBOOM, Derk; VARGAS, Manuel. Four views on free will. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2009.
FOCQUAERT, Farah; CARUSO, Gregg; SHAW, Elizabeth; PEREBOOM, Derek. Justice without retribution: interdisciplinary perspectives, stakeholder views and practical implications. Neuroethics, [s.l.], v. 13, n. 1, p. 1-3, 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s12152-019-09413-8.
FORSTMANN, Matthias; GURGMER, Pascal. A free will needs a free mind: Belief in substance dualism and reductive physicalism differentially predict belief in free will and determinism. Consciousness and Cognition, [s.l.], v. 63, p. 280-293, 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2018.07.003.
FREDE, Michael. A free will: origins of the notion in ancient thought. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 2011.
FRIED, Itzhak; MUKAMEL, Roy; KREIMAN, Gabriel. Internally generated preactivation of single neurons in human medial frontal cortex predicts volition. Neuron, [s.l.], v. 69, n. 3, p. 548-562, 2011. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.11.045.
FRITH, Chris D.; HAGGARD, Patrick. Volition and the brain – revisiting a classic experimental study. Trends in Neurosciences, [s.l.], v. 41, n. 7, p. 405-407, 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2018.04.009.
FUMAGALLI, Manuela; PRIORI, Alberto. Functional and clinical neuroanatomy of morality. Brain, [s.l.], v. 135, n. 7, p. 2006-2021, 2012. DOI: 10.1093/brain/awr334.
GALTON, Francis. Hereditary genius. New York, NY: D. Appleton, 1892.
GARCÍA-LÓPEZ, Eric; MERCURIO, Ezequiel; NIJDAM-JONES, Alicia; MORALES, Luz Anyela; ROSENFELD, Barry. Neurolaw in Latin America: Current status and challenges. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, [s.l.], v. 18, n. 3, p. 260-280, 2019. DOI: 10.1080/14999013.2018.1552634.
GENSCHOW, Oliver; HAWICKHORST, Heinz; RIGONI, Davide; ASCHERMANN, Ellen; BRASS, Marcel. Professional Judges’ Disbelief in Free Will Does Not Decrease Punishment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, [s.l.], v. 12, n. 3, p. 357-362, 2021. DOI: 10.1177/1948550620915055.
GENSCHOW, Oliver; RIGONI, Davide; BRASS, Marcel. Belief in free will affects causal attributions when judging others’ behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, [s.l.], v. 114, n. 38, p. 10071-10076, 2017. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1701916114.
GREENE, Joshua; COHEN, Jonathan. For the Law, Neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, [s.l.], v. 359, n. 1451, p. 1775-1785, 2004. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1546.
GREENE, Joshua. Moral tribes: emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. New York: Penguin Press, 2014.
HAGGARD, P.; EIMER, Martin. On the relation between brain potentials and the awareness of voluntary movements. Experimental Brain Research, [s.l.], v. 126, n. 1, p. 128-133, 1999. DOI: 10.1007/s002210050722.
HASSEMER, Winfried. Neurociências e culpabilidade em direito penal. Tradução: Paulo César Busato. In: BUSATO, Paulo César (org.). Neurociência e direito penal. São Paulo: Atlas, 2014. p. 1-16.
HIRSTEIN, William; SIFFERD, Katrina L.; FAGAN, Tyler. Responsible Brains: Neuroscience, Law, and Human Culpability. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2018.
IENCA, Marcello. On neurorights. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, [s.l.], v. 15, 2021. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.701258.
ILLES, Judy; SAHAKIAN, Barbara J. (ed.). Oxford handbook of Neuroethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
JONES, Owen D.; MAROIS, René; FARAH, Martha J.; GREELY, Henry T. Law and neuroscience. Journal of Neuroscience, [s.l.], v. 33, n. 45, p. 17624-17630, 2013.
JONES, Owen D.; SCHALL, Jeffrey D.; SHEN, Francis X. Law and neuroscience. New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2015.
JONES, Owen D.; WAGNER, Anthony D. Law and Neuroscience: Progress, Promise, and Pitfalls. Disponível em: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3178272. Acesso em: 10 jul. 2023.
KANT, Immanuel. Crítica da razão pura. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 1994.
KOLBER, Adam J. Will There Be a Neurolaw Revolution? Indiana Law Journal, [s.l.], v. 89, p. 807-845, 2014.
KORNHUBER, Hans Helmut; DEECKE, Lüder. Hirnpotentialänderungen beim Menschen vor und nach Willkürbewegungen, dargestellt mit Magnetbandspeicherung und Rückwärtsanalyse. Pflüger’s Archiv für die gesamte Physiologie des Menschen und der Tiere, [s.l.], v. 281, n. 2, p. 52, 1964. DOI: 10.1007/BF02906374.
LEE, Nick; BRODERICK, Amanda J.; CHAMBERLAIN, Laura. What is “neuromarketing”? A discussion and agenda for future research. International Journal of Psychophysiology, [s.l.], v. 63, n. 2, p. 199-204, 2007. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.03.007.
LEVY, Neil. Is neurolaw conceptually confused? The Journal of Ethics, [s.l.], v. 18, n. 2, p. 171-185, 2014. DOI: 10.1007/s10892-014-9168-z.
LIBET, Benjamin. Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, [s.l.], v. 8, n. 4, p. 529-539, 1985. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X00044903.
LIBET, Benjamin; GLEASON, Curtis A.; WRIGHT, Elwood W.; PEARL, Dennis K. Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). In: Neurophysiology of Consciousness: selected papers and new essays. Boston, MA: Birkhäuser, 1993. p. 249-268.
LILIENFELD, Scott O.; ASLINGER, Elizabeth; MARSHALL, Julia; SATEL, Sally. Neurohype: A field guide to exaggerated brain-based claims. In: JOHNSON, L. Syd M.; ROMMELFANGER, Karen S. (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2018. p. 241-261.
LOMBROSO, Cesare. L’uomo delinquente. Torino: Fratelli Bocca, 1880.
McKENNA, Michael. A hard-line reply to Pereboom’s four-case manipulation argument. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, [s.l.], v. 77, n. 1, p. 142-159, 2008.
MAOZ, Uri; YAFFE, Gideon. What does recent neuroscience tell us about criminal responsibility? Journal of Law and the Biosciences, [s.l.], v. 3, n. 1, p. 120-139, 2016.
MEYNEN, Gerben. Neurolaw: neuroscience, ethics, and law. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, [s.l.], v. 17, n. 4, p. 819-829, 2014.
MONIZ, E. Prefrontal leucotomy in the treatment of mental disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, [s.l.], v. 93, n. 6, p. 1379-1385, 1937.
MOORE, Michael S. Mechanical Choices: The Responsibility of the Human Machine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2020.
MORSE, Stephen J. New neuroscience, old problems: legal implications of brain science. Cerebrum, [s.l.], v. 6, n. 4, p. 81-90, 2004.
MORSE, Stephen J. Avoiding irrational neurolaw exuberance: a plea for neuro-modesty. Law, Innovation and Technology, [s.l.], v. 3, n. 2, p. 209-228, 2011. DOI: 10.5235/175799611798204932.
MUÑOZ ORTEGA, José Manuel. Hacia una sistematización de la relación entre determinismo y libertad. Daimon Revista Internacional de Filosofía, v. 56, p. 5-19, 2012.
MUÑOZ ORTEGA, José Manuel. Neurofilosofía y libre albedrío. Daimon Revista Internacional de Filosofía, [s.l.], v. 59, p. 57-70, 2013.
MUÑOZ ORTEGA, José Manuel; GARCÍA-LÓPEZ, Eric; RUSCONI, Elena. Neurolaw: The Call for Adjusting Theory Based on Scientific Results. Frontiers in Psychology, [s.l.], v. 11, 2020. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.582302.
NADELHOFFER, Thomas; SHEPARD, Jason; NAHMIAS, Eddy; SRIPADA, Chandra; ROSS, Lisa Thomson. The free will inventory: Measuring beliefs about agency and responsibility. Consciousness and Cognition, [s.l.], v. 25, p. 27-41, 2014.
NANN, M.; COHEN, L. G.; DEECKE, L.; SOEKADAR, S. R. To jump or not to jump-The Bereitschaftspotential required to jump into 192-meter abyss. Scientific Reports, [s.l.], v. 9, n. 1, p. 1-9, 2019. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-38447-w.
PAULHUS, Delroy; CAREY, Jasmine M. The FAD-Plus: Measuring lay beliefs regarding free will and related constructs. Journal of Personality Assessment, [s.l.], v. 93, n. 1, p. 96-104, 2011. DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2010.528483.
PARDO, Michael S.; PATTERSON, Dennis. Minds, Brains, and Law: The conceptual foundations of law and neuroscience. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2015.
PEREBOOM, Derk. Living without free will. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
PICOZZA, Eugenio. Neurolaw: An introduction. New York, NY: Springer, 2016.
POLDRACK, Russell. A. The new mind readers: What neuroimaging can and cannot reveal about our thoughts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018.
RIGONI, Davide; KÜHN, Simone; SARTORI, Giuseppe; BRASS, Marcel. Inducing disbelief in free will alters brain correlates of preconscious motor preparation: The brain minds whether we believe in free will or not. Psychological Science, [s.l.], v. 22, n. 5, p. 613-618, 2011. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611405680.
ROSKIES, Adina. Neuroethics for the new millenium. Neuron, v. 35, n. 1, p. 21-23, 2002. DOI: 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00763-8.
ROSKIES, Adina. Why Libet’s studies don’t pose a threat to free will. In: SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG, Walter; NADEL, Lynn (ed.). Conscious Will and Responsibility: A Tribute to Benjamin Libet. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. p. 11-22.
RUIZ, Aura; MUÑOZ ORTEGA, José Manuel. Neuroprevention: Developing Legal Policies in Risk Assessment Without Aspiring to Predict Crime. Journal of Science and Law, [s.l.], v. 9, n. 1, p. 1-5, 2021. DOI: 10.35005/y991-wv96.
RYLE, Gilbert. The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson & Co, 2009.
SAPOLSKY, Robert M. Behave: The biology of humans at our best and worst. London: Penguin Press, 2017.
SAPOLSKY, Robert M. Determined: a science of life without free will. London: Penguin Press, 2023.
SCHLEIM, Stephan; SPRANGER, Tade; ERK, Susanne; WALTER, Henrik. From moral to legal judgment: the influence of normative context in lawyers and other academics. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, [s.l.], v. 6, n. 1, 48-57, 2011. DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsq010.
SCHREIBER, Darren. Neuropolitics: Twenty years later. Politics and the Life Sciences, [s.l.], v. 36, n. 2, p. 114-131, 2017.
SCHURGER, Aaron; SITT, Jacobo D. DEHAENE, Stanislas. An accumulator model for spontaneous neural activity prior to self-initiated movement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, [s.l.], v. 109, n. 42, E2904-E2913, 2012. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1210467109.
SHARIFF, Azim F.; GREENE, Joshua; KARREMANS, Johan; LUGURI, Jamie B.; CLARK, Cory J.; SCHOOLER, Jonathan W.; BAUMEISTER, Roy F.; VOHS, Kathleen D. Free will and punishment: A mechanistic view of human nature reduces retribution. Psychological Science, [s.l.], v. 25, n. 8, p. 1563-1570, 2014. DOI: 10.1177/0956797614534693.
SHEN, Francis X. The law and neuroscience bibliography: Navigating the emerging field of neurolaw. International Journal of Legal Information, [s.l.], v. 38, n. 3, p. 352-399, 2010.
SHEN, Francis X. Law and neuroscience 2.0. Arizona State Law Journal, [s.l.], v. 48, p. 1043-1086, 2016.
SHEN, Francis X. The overlooked history of neurolaw. Fordham Law Review, v. 85, n. 2, p. 667-695, 2016.
SILVA, Ângelo Roberto Ilha da; DIAS, Daison Nelson Ferreira. Benjamin Libet: do Bereitschaftspotential à teoria dualística free will e free won’t e sua repercussão na culpabilidade como juízo de reprovação. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Criminais, São Paulo, a. 29, v. 182, p. 17-68.
SOON, Chun Siong; BRASS, Marcel; HEINZE, Hans-Jochen; HAYNES, John-Dylan. Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience, [s.l.], v. 11, n. 5, p. 543-545, 2008. DOI: 10.1038/nn.2112.
TAYLOR, J. Sherrod; HARP, J. Anderson; ELLIOT, Tyron. Neuropsychologists and Neurolawyers. Neuropsychology, [s.l.], v. 5, n. 4, p. 293-305, 1991.
VERPLAETSE, Jan. Localizing the moral sense: Neuroscience and the search for the cerebral seat of morality, 1800-1930. Dordrecht: Springer, 2009.
VILANOVA, Thiago Rafael Santin Felipe; COSTA, Ângelo Brandelli; NADELHOFFER, Daniela Goya Tocchetto Thomas; KOLLER, Silvia Helena. Validity evidence of the free will inventory for the Brazilian population. Avaliação Psicológica, Itatiba, v. 17, n. 1, p. 1-11, 2018. DOI: 10.15689/ap.2017.1701.01.13308.
VINCENT, Nicole A.; NADELHOFFER, Thomas; McCAY, Allan (ed.). Neurointerventions and the Law: Regulating Human Mental Capacity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.
WAGNER, Anthony D.; BONNIE, Richard J.; CASEY, B. J.; DAVIS, Andre; FAIGMAN, David L.; HOFFMAN, Morris B.; JONES, Owen D.; MONTAGUE, Read; MORSE, Stephen J.; RAAICHLE, Marcus E.; RICHESON, Jennifer A.; SCOTT, Elizabeth S.; STEINBERG, Laurence; TAYLOR-THOMPSON; YAFFE, Gideon. fMRI and lie detection: A Knowledge Brief of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience. Vanderbilt Law Research Paper No. 17-10 2016. Disponível em: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2015?utm_source=scholarship.law.columbia.edu%2Ffaculty_scholarship%2F2015&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages. Acesso em: 10 jul. 2023.
WEGNER, Daniel M. The mind’s best trick: how we experience conscious will. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, [s.l.], v. 7, n. 2, p. 65-69, 2003. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00002-0.
WISNIEWSKI, David; DEUTSCHLÄNDER, Robert; HAYNES, John-Dylan. Free will beliefs are better predicted by dualism than determinism beliefs across different cultures. PLoS ONE, [s.l.], v. 14, n. 9, e0221617, 2019. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221617.
YANG, Qun; SHAO, Robin; ZHANG, Qian; LI, Chun; LI, Yu; LI, Haijiang; LEE, Tatia. When morality opposes the law: an fMRI investigation into punishment judgments for crimes with good intentions. Neuropsychologia, [s.l.], v. 127, p. 195-203, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.01.020.
YUSTE, Rafael; GENSER, Jared; HERRMANN, Stephanie. It’s time for neuro-rights. Horizons, [s.l.], v. 18, p. 154-164, 2021.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2023 Revista do Instituto de Ciências Penais
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
