THE JURY COURT AND THE LIMITS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY: A CRITICAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN THE CASES OF POUSADA GAROA (RS) AND SÃO JOSÉ DOS CAMPOS (SP)

Abstract

This article critically analyzes the limits of criminal liability in the context of jury trials, conducting a comparative study between the emblematic case of Pousada Garoa in Porto Alegre/RS and the arson attack on a shelter in São José dos Campos/SP. From a rights-based perspective, the application of the legal concepts of eventual intent, the position of guarantor, and the jurisdictional competence of the jury is examined, questioning expansive interpretations that may compromise fundamental constitutional guarantees. The study uses a comparative qualitative methodology, based on doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis and concrete cases, to demonstrate that criminal liability must strictly observe constitutional principles and the search for the real truth. The central thesis defended is that criminal responsibility for the deaths lies exclusively with the arsonists who deliberately set the fires, with no culpable or intentional participation by owners or public officials who worked properly without ever wishing for deaths. The research reveals significant disparities in the investigative approach between the two cases: while in São Paulo the arsonist was promptly identified and held accountable, in Rio Grande do Sul there was an attempt to hold landowners and public officials who performed their duties properly accountable. It is concluded that the effective protection of vulnerable groups requires the technical and proportional application of criminal law, avoiding the trivialization of fundamental concepts and the violation of procedural guarantees, especially when the investigation may have been influenced by media distortions that compromised the search for the real truth.