Two arguable ways to question the cognitive character of the legal implementation of criminal law: the principle of consensus and the guarantee of punitive non-aggravation

Abstract

This work focuses on the analysis of the legal function of criminal Law application in relation to the emergence of regulatory realities that challenge the predominant manner of how we understand our legal tradition, that is, as a function of applying criminal norms based on a cognitive natured activity aimed at correctly establishing facts, so as to fairly decide upon issues subject to prosecution. From this perspective, we will analyze some critical aspects of the so-called principle of consensus and the (likely) emergence of guarantee of punitive non-aggravation, with the purpose of describing arguable situations or practices from the aforementioned scope, as well as to find ways to articulate regulatory realities that emerge from the criminal procedure with the nature or the essence of legal jurisdiction.