Non-prosecution agreement

the confession retaking the position of “queen of the evidence”

Views: 12

Authors

  • Livia Barcessat Lewinski Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, PUC/SP, Brasil.
  • Maria Clara Nicolellis Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, PUC/SP, Brasil.
  • Pedro Vilhena Pinheiro Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, PUC/SP, Brasil.

Keywords:

“Pacote Anticrime”, Non-prosecution agreement, Article 28-A, CCP, Confession, Due process of law

Abstract

At first, the article recognizes that the Brazilian society has a strong punitive desire, which can be seen not only through brazilian's aptitudes, but also through its laws. For being a manifestation of this growing punitive claim, we criticize the non-criminal prosecution agreement as presented by Law 13. 964/ 19, known as “Pacote Anticrime”. Our criticisms are focused, above all, on the confession model, which we consider unconstitutional, arbitrary and extremely inquisitorial. Furthermore, we consider that the forms of negotiation crime, when appropriate to the legal limits, prove to be beneficial both for the reduction of the exorbitant prison population and for the speed of the proceedings. Therefore, we end the text proposing ways to solve the inconsistencies found in the non-criminal prosecution agreement. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Livia Barcessat Lewinski, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, PUC/SP, Brasil.

Bacharelanda em Direito pela PUCSP.  Estagiária no Núcleo Sobre o Crime e a Pena da FGV. 

Maria Clara Nicolellis, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, PUC/SP, Brasil.

Bacharelanda em Direito pela PUCSP.  Estagiária no Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo. 

Pedro Vilhena Pinheiro, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, PUC/SP, Brasil.

Bacharelando em Direito pela PUCSP. 

Downloads

Published

2024-07-22

How to Cite

Barcessat Lewinski, L., Nicolellis, M. C., & Vilhena Pinheiro, P. (2024). Non-prosecution agreement: the confession retaking the position of “queen of the evidence”. Boletim IBCCRIM, 30(353), 16–18. Retrieved from https://publicacoes.ibccrim.org.br/index.php/boletim_1993/article/view/1457

Issue

Vol. 30 No. 353 (2022): Boletim IBCCRIM - Abril

Section

Doutrina

License

Copyright of published articles belongs to the author, but with journal rights over the first publication and respecting the one-year exclusivity period. Authors may only use the same results in other publications by clearly indicating this journal as the medium of the original publication. If there is no such indication, it will be considered a situation of self-plagiarism.

Therefore, the reproduction, total or partial, of the articles published here is subject to the express mention of the origin of its publication in this journal, citing the volume and number of this publication. For legal purposes, the source of the original publication must be consigned, in addition to the DOI link for cross-reference (if any).

Metrics