A psicologia e a construção do depoimento especial nos tribunais brasileiros

Abstract

This research aims to comprehend how special testimony (ST) has been standardized and carried out by psychologists in Brazilian Courts. This objective is divided into five specific objectives: to analyze the contours of the implementation of ST in different Brazilian Courts and its articulation with the field of psychology; to raise which types of violence are referred to the ST; to understand how psychologists who have been admitted to the Courts experience the divergences in the positioning of the National Council of Justice (NCJ) / Judiciary Branch and the Federal Council of Psychology (FCP) in relation to the ST; to analyze the feasibility of psychology practices beyond the special testimony in cases referred to the ST and to understand how psychology has been participating in the construction of the ST practice in Brazilian Courts. As a methodological strategy, the analysis of documents was the method chosen to achieve the first specific objective and online semi-structured individual interviews were used to achieve the others. The documents analyzed were issued by Brazilian Courts (TJSE, TJGO, TJDFT, TJSC, TJRJ) and provide for the ST in the institution, outlining guidelines and standards for practice. The interviews were conducted with psychologists who have been admitted to the Courts and who work with the ST (TJSE, TJGO, TJDFT, TJSC, TJRJ, TJAM). The data were treated through thematic content analysis, from the references of legal social psychology. The results indicate the ST know-hows that are common in the researched institutions and that coexist with specific characteristics of each location. Institutional approaches tend to relate to the guidelines of Law No. 13.431/2017, the capabilities and epistemologies used in the ST, while the peculiarities can demonstrate constructions that can be made in each institution. Despite the apparent generalist character attributed to the ST, in the investigated institutions, the presence of psychologists and social workers as ST interviewers predominates. Thus, it is inferred that the general character of the practice is more related to the context of the emergence of the ST Law - in which the System of Psychology Councils was contrary to the psychologist's role in the method - than to the reality investigated. In the work of the ST, tensions between the institutional hierarchy and professional autonomy are perceived, and it is essential that the Court provides the necessary instruments for the realization of the professional's work, so that a truly interdisciplinary relationship occurs, without the imposition of practices. Therefore, ongoing constructions that can contribute to the joint work in the ST are visible, highlighting the choice to participate or not in the ST and the analysis and technical decision in relation to the questions arising from legal professionals. Furthermore, the expansion of the work carried out in the ST is often desired by psychologists, which can contribute to the realization of the right to protection of children and adolescents. Thus, this work, more than positioning itself in favor or against the method, sought to recognize its potential, problematize its restrictions or impossibilities, pay attention to its effectiveness and, mainly, visualize constructions that can contribute to strengthening the ethical, technical, and critical work of the psychologist in the Justice System.