(In)compatibility between the eventual intent and the attempt

Views: 29

Authors

  • Salvador Scarpelli Neto Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas, PUC-Campinas, Brasil.

Keywords:

Penal dogmatic, Eventual intent, Incompatibility, Attempt

Abstract

In this brief text, aims to verify the (in)compatibility of the dolus eventualis with the attempt. For this purpose, the position of the national doctrine on the nature of that subjective category is analyzed. From the majority understanding, the reasons why the incongruity is stated are presented, namely: the significant reduction of the volitional element in the eventual intent and the inherent demand of this element in the figure of the attempt. Finally, analyzing the precedent of the Superior Court of Justice, in addition to verifying which line was followed, a critique is structured as to the fundamentals used. This is done to show that, by combining that subjective category with the attempt, the dogmatic limits imposed by the legal system are violated and the scope of the punitive power is inadequately extended.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Salvador Scarpelli Neto, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas, PUC-Campinas, Brasil.

Especialista em Direito Penal e Criminologia pelo Instituto de Criminologia e Política Criminal. Bacharel em Direito pela PUC-Campinas. Advogado.

References

BRASIL. Decreto-Lei 2.848, de 07 de dezembro de 1940. Código Penal. Diário Oficial da União, Rio de Janeiro, 31 de dez. 1940).

BRASIL. Superior Tribunal de Justiça (5. Turma). Recurso em Habeas-corpus n. 6.797 – RJ (1997/0065157-6). Relator: Min. Edson Vidigal. Diário de Justiça: RDTJSRJ vol. 37, p. 122, 16 fev. 1998.

BRASIL. Superior Tribunal de Justiça (5. Turma). Agravo regimental no Habeas-corpus n. 678.195 – SC (2021/0208808-0). Relator: Min. Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca, 20 set. 2021. Disponível em: https://processo.stj.jus.br/processo/pesquisa/?src=1.1.3&aplicacao=processos.ea&tipoPesquisa=tipoPesquisaGenerica&num_registro=202102088080 . Acesso em: 30 mar. 2022.

BRASIL. Superior Tribunal de Justiça (5. Turma). Habeas-corpus n. 147.729 – SP (2009/0182130-7). Relator: Min. Jorge Mussi, 20 jun. 2012. Disponível em: < https://processo.stj.jus.br/processo/pesquisa/?src=1.1.3&aplicacao=processos.ea&tipoPesquisa=tipoPesquisaGenerica&num_registro=200901821307 . Acesso em: 30 mar. 2022.

CIRINO DOS SANTOS, Juarez. Direito penal – Parte geral. Florianópolis: Empório do Direito, 2017.

TAVARES, Juarez. Fundamentos de teoria do delito. Florianópolis: Tirant lo Blanch, 2018.

ZAFFARONI, Eugenio Raúl et al. Direito penal brasileiro: introdução histórica e metodológica, ação e tipicidade. v. 2. Rio de Janeiro: Revan, 2019.

Downloads

Published

2024-07-24

How to Cite

Scarpelli Neto, S. (2024). (In)compatibility between the eventual intent and the attempt. Boletim IBCCRIM, 30(355), 23–25. Retrieved from https://publicacoes.ibccrim.org.br/index.php/boletim_1993/article/view/1484

Issue

Vol. 30 No. 355 (2022): Boletim IBCCRIM - Junho

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).