The overcharging risk in the brazilian criminal procedure’s bargaining practice

Views: 196

Authors

Keywords:

Plea bargaining , Overcharging, Penal transaction , Non-prosecution agreement , American Law

Abstract

This article aims to articulate an analysis of the risk of extensive overcharging practice in the Brazilian Criminal Law’s bargaining mechanisms, working with the concept as defined in American Law and understanding the factors which favor its existence.  At the end, we check if those factors are present in Brazilian Law, with a special focus on the “penal transaction” and “non-prosecution agreement” regulated by Brazilian Law.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Pedro Luís de Almeida Camargo, Universidade de São Paulo - USP - São Paulo/SP

Especialista em Obtenção, Interpretação e Valoração da Prova pela Universidade de Salamanca. Bacharel em Direito pela USP. Advogado. Lattes CV: http://lattes.cnpq.br/8451429372152340

References

ALSCHULER, Albert. The prosecutor ́s role in plea bargaining. University of Chicago

Law Review, Chicago, v. 36, p. 50-112, 1968.

ALSCHULER, Albert. Plea Bargaining and Its History. Columbia Law Review, New York, v. 79, n. 1, p. 1-43, 1979.

BADARÓ, Gustavo Henrique. Processo Penal. 6. ed. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2018.

BADARÓ, Gustavo Henrique. Correlação entre acusação e sentença. 4. ed. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2019.

BITENCOURT, Cezar Roberto. Tratado de Direito Penal. 17. ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2012, v. 1.

BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal (1. Turma). Inq 4093, Rel. Min. Roberto Barroso. DJe 18 maio 2016. Disponível em: https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=TP&docID=10975135, Acesso em: 14 abril 2021.

BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal (2. Turma). HC 150.580 AgR, Rel. Min. Gilmar Mendes, Segunda Turma, DJe 14 dezembro 2018. Disponível em: https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=TP&docID=748868589. Acesso em: 14 abril 2021.

BRASIL. Tribunal Regional Federal da 3ª Região (11. Turma). HC 0004307-79.2017.4.03.0000, Rel. Des. Nino Toldo, DJe 27 agosto 2018. Disponível em: http://web.trf3.jus.br/acordaos/Acordao/BuscarDocumentoGedpro/6698196. Acesso em: 14 abril 2021.

BROWN, Darryl K. Reforming the Judge’s Role in Plea Bargaining. In: DEMPSEY, Michelle Madden; DUFF, R. A.; HOSKINS, Zach; JAIN, Neha (eds.). The Future of Criminal Law: Working Papers from the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice. Minneapolis: Robina Institute, 2014. p. 75-84.

CRESPO, Andrew Manuel. The Hidden Law of Plea Bargaining. Columbia Law Review, New York, v. 118, n. 5, p. 1303-1424, 2018.

ESTADOS UNIDOS DA AMÉRICA. Supreme Court of the United States. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). Disponível em: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/284/299/. Acesso em: 13 abril 2021.

ESTADOS UNIDOS DA AMÉRICA. Supreme Court of the United States. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970). Disponível em: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/742/. Acesso em: 13 abril 2021.

LAFAVE, Wayne R.; ISRAEL, Jerold H. Criminal procedure. 2 ed. St. Paul: West, 1992.

LANGER, Maximo. Rethinking Plea Bargaining: The Practice and Reform of Prosecutorial Adjudication in American Criminal Procedure. American Journal of Criminal Law, Austin, v. 33, p. 223-299, 2006.

LANGER, Máximo. Plea Bargaining, Conviction Without Trial, and the Global Administratization of Criminal Convictions. UCLA School of Law, Public Law Research Paper, p. 19-35, 2019.

NUCCI, Guilherme de Souza. Pacote anticrime comentado. Rio de Janeiro: Forense. 2020.

PIZZI, William T. Understanding Prosecutorial Discretion in the United States: The Limits of Comparative Criminal Procedure as an Instrument of Reform. Ohio State Law Journal, Columbus, v. 54, p. 1325-1373, 1993.

SABOYA, Keity. Ne bis in idem em tempos de multiplicidades de sanções e de agências de controle punitivo. Jornal de Ciências Criminais, São Paulo, v. 1, n. 1, p. 71-92, 2018.

TURNER, Jenia Iontcheva. Judicial Participation in Plea Negotiations: A Comparative View. The American Journal of Comparative Law, v. 54, n. 4, p. 501-570, 2006.

VASCONCELLOS, Vinicius Gomes de. Barganha e Justiça Criminal Negocial: Análise das tendências de expansão dos espaços de consenso no processo penal brasileiro. São Paulo: IBCCRIM, 2015.

ZILLI, Marcos. Pelo movimento antropófago do processo penal: to bargain or not to bargain? eis a questão. In: MALAN, Diogo; BADARÓ, Gustavo; ZILLI, Marcos; MOURA, Maria Thereza Rocha de Assis; SAAD, Marta; ZANOIDE DE MORAES, Maurício. Processo penal humanista: escritos em homenagem a Antonio Magalhães Gomes Filho. Belo Horizonte: D’Plácido, 2019. p. 143-180.

Downloads

Published

2023-09-21

How to Cite

de Almeida Camargo, P. L. (2023). The overcharging risk in the brazilian criminal procedure’s bargaining practice. Boletim IBCCRIM, 29(344), 29–31. Retrieved from https://publicacoes.ibccrim.org.br/index.php/boletim_1993/article/view/734

Issue

Vol. 29 No. 344 (2021): Boletim especial: justiça penal negocial

Section

Diálogos

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).