PERÍCIA PSICOLÓGICA JUDICIÁRIA E O PRINCÍPIO DA NÃO PRODUÇÃO DE PROVAS CONTRA SI MESMO

Abstract

This study aims to bring to light the relationships of inclusion between Forensic Psychology and Law, as well as their respective limitations and ethical contradictions, based on the practices provided for in current legislation. It is important to clarify that the interface established between Psychology and Law exists due to the concern of these disciplines with human conduct. The question that guided this research seeks to answer: would psychological expertise as a means of evidence not be contrary to the principle of not producing evidence against oneself? Thus, bibliographic, descriptive and documentary research was used to produce this article, using primary and secondary sources. Due to the coercive nature and the final importance of the procedural result, the rule is that the experts are even instructed not to incriminate themselves, distorting reality in an expert assessment situation. The idea is defended that psychological expertise as an element of evidence should be viewed with caution and should not be conclusive, given its main characteristic, which is to provide situational elements in relation to the relationships between the parties, mainly in the areas of family, successions and childhood and youth, dynamic and changing contexts.