为什么进步的法院未能保护囚犯免受 COVID-19 的侵害?大规模监禁与巴西最高法院。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health and Human Rights Pub Date : 2023-12-01
Daniel Wei Liang Wang, Luisa Moraes Abreu Ferreira, Paulo Sergio Coelho Filho, Matheus de Barros, Julia Abrahao Homsi, Mariana Morais Zambom, Ezequiel Fajreldines Dos Santos
{"title":"为什么进步的法院未能保护囚犯免受 COVID-19 的侵害?大规模监禁与巴西最高法院。","authors":"Daniel Wei Liang Wang, Luisa Moraes Abreu Ferreira, Paulo Sergio Coelho Filho, Matheus de Barros, Julia Abrahao Homsi, Mariana Morais Zambom, Ezequiel Fajreldines Dos Santos","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite acknowledging the risks of the COVID-19 pandemic for the prison population, Brazil's Supreme Court declined to issue structural injunctions during the health crisis ordering lower courts to consider these risks when making incarceration-related decisions. These injunctions could have been crucial to mitigate mass incarceration and protect the prison population during the pandemic. Through an examination of the Supreme Court's rulings in structural cases and in a sample of over 4,000 habeas corpus decisions, this paper argues that granting these injunctions would have overwhelmed the court with an unmanageable influx of individual claims. Consequently, the Supreme Court acted strategically in anticipation of its limited institutional capacity to enforce compliance with structural injunctions among lower courts. This case study illustrates how practical considerations can hinder structural decisions in criminal law and highlights the limits of structural litigation and constitutional jurisdiction to address mass incarceration.</p>","PeriodicalId":46953,"journal":{"name":"Health and Human Rights","volume":"25 2","pages":"67-82"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10733772/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Has a Progressive Court Failed to Protect the Prison Population against COVID-19? Mass Incarceration and Brazil's Supreme Court.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Wei Liang Wang, Luisa Moraes Abreu Ferreira, Paulo Sergio Coelho Filho, Matheus de Barros, Julia Abrahao Homsi, Mariana Morais Zambom, Ezequiel Fajreldines Dos Santos\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Despite acknowledging the risks of the COVID-19 pandemic for the prison population, Brazil's Supreme Court declined to issue structural injunctions during the health crisis ordering lower courts to consider these risks when making incarceration-related decisions. These injunctions could have been crucial to mitigate mass incarceration and protect the prison population during the pandemic. Through an examination of the Supreme Court's rulings in structural cases and in a sample of over 4,000 habeas corpus decisions, this paper argues that granting these injunctions would have overwhelmed the court with an unmanageable influx of individual claims. Consequently, the Supreme Court acted strategically in anticipation of its limited institutional capacity to enforce compliance with structural injunctions among lower courts. This case study illustrates how practical considerations can hinder structural decisions in criminal law and highlights the limits of structural litigation and constitutional jurisdiction to address mass incarceration.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46953,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and Human Rights\",\"volume\":\"25 2\",\"pages\":\"67-82\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10733772/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and Human Rights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管认识到 COVID-19 大流行病对监狱人口的风险,但巴西最高法院拒绝在健康危机期间发布结构性禁令,命令下级法院在做出与监禁相关的决定时考虑这些风险。这些禁令对于减少大规模监禁、保护大流行病期间的监狱人口至关重要。通过对最高法院在结构性案件中的裁决以及 4,000 多份人身保护令的抽样裁决进行研究,本文认为,如果批准这些禁令,大量的个人诉求将使法院不堪重负。因此,最高法院采取了战略性的行动,因为它预计自己的机构能力有限,无法强制下级法院遵守结构性禁令。本案例研究说明了实际考虑因素如何阻碍刑法中的结构性决定,并强调了结构性诉讼和宪法管辖权在解决大规模监禁问题上的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Why Has a Progressive Court Failed to Protect the Prison Population against COVID-19? Mass Incarceration and Brazil's Supreme Court.

Despite acknowledging the risks of the COVID-19 pandemic for the prison population, Brazil's Supreme Court declined to issue structural injunctions during the health crisis ordering lower courts to consider these risks when making incarceration-related decisions. These injunctions could have been crucial to mitigate mass incarceration and protect the prison population during the pandemic. Through an examination of the Supreme Court's rulings in structural cases and in a sample of over 4,000 habeas corpus decisions, this paper argues that granting these injunctions would have overwhelmed the court with an unmanageable influx of individual claims. Consequently, the Supreme Court acted strategically in anticipation of its limited institutional capacity to enforce compliance with structural injunctions among lower courts. This case study illustrates how practical considerations can hinder structural decisions in criminal law and highlights the limits of structural litigation and constitutional jurisdiction to address mass incarceration.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health and Human Rights
Health and Human Rights PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
5.40%
发文量
22
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Health and Human Rights began publication in 1994 under the editorship of Jonathan Mann, who was succeeded in 1997 by Sofia Gruskin. Paul Farmer, co-founder of Partners In Health, assumed the editorship in 2007. After more than a decade as a leading forum of debate on global health and rights concerns, Health and Human Rights made a significant new transition to an online, open access publication with Volume 10, Issue Number 1, in the summer of 2008. While continuing the journal’s print-only tradition of critical scholarship, Health and Human Rights, now available as both print and online text, provides an inclusive forum for action-oriented dialogue among human rights practitioners.
期刊最新文献
"It's about Rights": The Bunya Project's Indigenous Australian Voices on Health Care Curricula and Practice. "Reducing the Treatment Gap" Poses Human Rights Risks. "They Had to Catch Me Like an Animal": Exploring Experiences of Involuntary Care for People with Psychosocial Conditions in South Africa. Are Rights-Based Services Important? An Adolescent PrEP Demonstration Project in Brazil. Law, Human Rights, and Pandemic Response: Reflecting on the South African HIV Response 25 Years Later.
×
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