Deciding not to decide

Daniel Wei Liang Wang, Luisa Moraes Abreu Ferreira, Matheus De Barros, Júlia Abrahão Homsi, Mariana Morais Zambom, Ezequiel Fajreldines dos Santos, Paulo Sergio de Albuquerque Coelho Filho
{"title":"Deciding not to decide","authors":"Daniel Wei Liang Wang, Luisa Moraes Abreu Ferreira, Matheus De Barros, Júlia Abrahão Homsi, Mariana Morais Zambom, Ezequiel Fajreldines dos Santos, Paulo Sergio de Albuquerque Coelho Filho","doi":"10.22197/rbdpp.v10i1.884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is based on a representative and randomly selected sample of 396 individual criminal decisions from the Federal Supreme Court, issued between January 1, 2020, and June 22, 2021, related to the COVID-19 pandemic. We tracked the petitions, the type of imprisonment, the date of judgment, the type of legal action, and the outcomes of these requests. Subsequently, we conducted a qualitative analysis of the arguments employed by the Court in reaching its decisions. The main objective of the study is to understand how the Court ruled on requests for release from incarceration and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic in the judicial reasoning. The findings indicate that the pandemic had no relevant impact on the Court’s decision-making process. Dismissals on procedural grounds prevailed, allowing the court to avoid ruling on the merits of a claim. On the other hand, when the merits were analyzed, the pandemic was not treated as a sufficient argument for releasing a prisoner. Additionally, during the pandemic, CNJ’s Recommendation No. 62 and ADPF No. 347 had no argumentative prominence in the few decisions that granted requests for release. This research reinforces the diagnosis that the pandemic has not changed how the Judiciary deals with imprisonment. This finding contributes to understand the challenges in tackling mass incarceration in Brazil.","PeriodicalId":41933,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v10i1.884","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article is based on a representative and randomly selected sample of 396 individual criminal decisions from the Federal Supreme Court, issued between January 1, 2020, and June 22, 2021, related to the COVID-19 pandemic. We tracked the petitions, the type of imprisonment, the date of judgment, the type of legal action, and the outcomes of these requests. Subsequently, we conducted a qualitative analysis of the arguments employed by the Court in reaching its decisions. The main objective of the study is to understand how the Court ruled on requests for release from incarceration and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic in the judicial reasoning. The findings indicate that the pandemic had no relevant impact on the Court’s decision-making process. Dismissals on procedural grounds prevailed, allowing the court to avoid ruling on the merits of a claim. On the other hand, when the merits were analyzed, the pandemic was not treated as a sufficient argument for releasing a prisoner. Additionally, during the pandemic, CNJ’s Recommendation No. 62 and ADPF No. 347 had no argumentative prominence in the few decisions that granted requests for release. This research reinforces the diagnosis that the pandemic has not changed how the Judiciary deals with imprisonment. This finding contributes to understand the challenges in tackling mass incarceration in Brazil.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
决定不做决定
本文基于联邦最高法院在 2020 年 1 月 1 日至 2021 年 6 月 22 日期间做出的 396 项与 COVID-19 大流行病相关的个人刑事判决的代表性随机抽样。我们对请求、监禁类型、判决日期、法律诉讼类型以及这些请求的结果进行了跟踪。随后,我们对法院在做出判决时采用的论据进行了定性分析。本研究的主要目的是了解法院是如何对释放监禁请求做出裁决的,以及 Covid-19 大流行病对司法推理的影响。研究结果表明,大流行病对法院的决策过程没有相关影响。以程序为由驳回申诉的情况占了上风,这使得法院可以避免对申诉的案情实质做出裁决。另一方面,在分析案情实质时,大流行病并不被视为释放囚犯的充分理由。此外,在大流行病期间,CNJ 的第 62 号建议和 ADPF 的第 347 号建议在批准释放请求的少数裁决中并不突出。这项研究强化了这一诊断,即大流行病并未改变司法机构处理监禁问题的方式。这一发现有助于了解巴西在应对大规模监禁方面所面临的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
66.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reflections about the preclusion of the right to prove in Brazilian criminal procedure Os vícios de motivação como causa do erro judiciário: um primeiro esboço Reparation as a condition of the non-prosecution agreement in crimes against the tax system Il giudice, le parti e la prova nel sistema di giudizio penale italiano: contributo alla riforma in Brasile Specialised justice as a path between the universal and the particular in the light of the Chilean case
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1