Oxente! Preventive detention, concrete gravity, and the goddess Aphrodite
Keywords:
preventive detention, public order, judicial reasoning, early sentencing, procedural guaranteesAbstract
This article investigates the growing use of the argument of the “concrete gravity” of the fact as a basis for ordering preventive detention in the Brazilian criminal justice system. It starts from the premise that preventive detention must have an instrumental purpose and be subject to the requirements of Article 312 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (materiality, evidence, need to guarantee public order, economic order, investigation, or application of the law). It argues that recent decisions replace concrete risk with mere considerations of abstract gravity or social outcry, violating the principle of presumption of innocence and transforming preventive detention into anticipation of punishment. In this context, “public order” becomes a changeable and subjective concept, comparable to the mythological figure of the goddess Aphrodite, whose form adapts to the gaze of those who contemplate her, illustrating the arbitrariness of the adopted rationale. A critical reflection on the effects of this pattern on mass incarceration and the erosion of procedural guarantees is proposed.
Downloads
References
(1) SIGNIFICADOS. Disponível em: <https://www.significados.com.br/oxente>. Acesso em: 24 jan. 2019.
(2) BRASIL. Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ). Disponível em: <http://www.stj.jus.br/SCON/pesquisar.jsp>. Acesso em: 02 de jan. 2019.
(3) BRASIL. Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ). Disponível em: <http://www.stj.jus.br/SCON/pesquisar.jsp>. Acesso em: 02 de jan. 2019.
(4) Aragão, Gerson. Qual a diferença entre interpretação analógica e analogia no direito penal? Jusbrasil.com.br.
(5) Lopes Jr., Aury. Curso de processo penal. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2016. p. 157.
(6) Streck, Lenio Luiz; Oliveira, Rafael Tomas de. O que é isto: as garantias processuais penais? Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado, 2012. p. 6.
(7) Prado, Geraldo. Prova penal e sistemas de controles epistêmicos: a quebra da cadeia de custódia das provas obtidas por métodos ocultos. São Paulo: Marcial Pons, 2014b. p. 33.
(8) Pensador. Disponível em: <https://www.pensador.com/brechtbertolt>. Acesso em: 24 jan. 2019.
(9) Gloeckner, Ricardo Jacobsen. Risco e processo penal: uma análise a partir dos direitos fundamentais do acusado. Salvador: JusPodivm, 2009. p. 322.
(10) BRASIL. Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ). Habeas Corpus n. 143147. Paciente: Jonas Abib. Impetrado: Tribunal de Justiça do Estado da Bahia. Relator: Ministro Ericson Maranhão. Diário de Justiça, Brasília, DF, 17 mar. 2016. Disponível em: <https://ww2.stj.jus.br/processo/pesquisa/?src=1.1.3&aplicacao=processos.ea&tipoPesquisa=tipoPesquisaGenerica&num_registro=200901445119>. Acesso em: 24 jan. 2019.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International 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).




