Criticism of the trivialisation of precautionary measures other than imprisonment in Brazilian criminal procedure

Views: 102

Authors

Keywords:

Precautionary measures other than prison, Criminal procedure, Pre-trial detention, Custody hearing, Incarceration

Abstract

This article deals with the trivialization of precautionary measures other than prison (art. 319, CPP) in Brazilian criminal proceedings. It was based on a report by the Instituto de Defesa do Direito de Defesa (2019) according to which 99% of the prisoners who underwent custody hearings in the country remained under some form of criminal control by the State. The report, added to statements by members of the Judiciary on this topic, indicates a tendency of indiscriminate imposition, in the forensic routine, of different precautionary measures, regardless of the presence of legal requirements, constituting an undue expansion of the penal arm of the State. In view of this, it is argued that greater technical rigor is needed when precautionary measures other than prison are applied, rather than simply restoring the accused's freedom to respond to the process in freedom.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Pedro Bertolucci Keese, The London School of Economics and Political Science - LSE - Inglaterra

Mestre, com distinction, em Política Criminal pela The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) (2023). Mestre em Direito e Desenvolvimento pela Fundação Getúlio Vargas - Escola de Direito de São Paulo (2020).  Professor da Pós-Graduação em Direito de Execução Penal do Curso CEI (2021-atual). Advogado criminalista. Lattes CV: http://lattes.cnpq.br/0606820229489664

References

MARCÃO, Renato. Prisões cautelares, liberdade provisória e medidas cautelares restritivas: de acordo com a Lei 12.403, de 4.5.2011. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2011, p. 31.

BADARÓ, Gustavo. Processo Penal. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier, 2014, p. 744.

MINAGÉ, Thiago. Prisões e medidas cautelares à luz da Constituição. Florianópolis: Empório do Direito, 2016, p. 209.

BADARÓ, Gustavo Henrique Processo penal. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2016. p. 1005.

Instituto de Defesa do Direito de Defesa – IDDD. O Fim da liberdade: relatório nacional completo. IDDD, São Paulo, 2019. p. 102. Disponível em: <http://www.iddd.org.br/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2019/08/OFimDaLiberdade_simples.pdf>. Acessado em 11/09/2019.

Relatório IDDD, 2019, p. 97. Disponível em: <http://www.iddd.org.br/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads /2019/08/OFimDaLiberdade_simples.pdf>. Acesso em: 11 set. 2019.

DIAS, José Carlos; LEONARDO, Hugo. Audiência de custódia: quando os fatos incomodam. Revista Consultor Jurídico, 6/09/2019. Disponível em: <https://www.conjur.com.br/2019-set-06/opiniao-quando-fatos-audiencias-custodia-incomodam>. Acesso em: 11 set. 2019.

Downloads

Published

2023-12-21

How to Cite

Bertolucci Keese, P. (2023). Criticism of the trivialisation of precautionary measures other than imprisonment in Brazilian criminal procedure. Boletim IBCCRIM, 28(334), 7–9. Retrieved from https://publicacoes.ibccrim.org.br/index.php/boletim_1993/article/view/888

Issue

Vol. 28 No. 334 (2020): Boletim IBCCRIM - Setembro

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).