刑事执行中的合法性 "与 "管辖权?TRF-4 决定中电子监控的财政负担

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW
Thyerrí José Cruz Silva, Samyle Regina Matos Oliveira
{"title":"刑事执行中的合法性 \"与 \"管辖权?TRF-4 决定中电子监控的财政负担","authors":"Thyerrí José Cruz Silva, Samyle Regina Matos Oliveira","doi":"10.22197/rbdpp.v10i1.872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Criminal execution is a state activity based on the principles of certain, strict and exhaustive legality and jurisdictionality, which is why the rights and duties of prisoners must always comply with legal provisions. Despite this, the Brazilian Regional Federal Court of the 4th Region (TRF-4) has been imposed on the monitored person the burden of bearing the expenses arising from electronic monitoring, a burden that is not supported by Brazilian legislation that deals with the subject. For this reason, it is necessary to question, as a research problem: are these TRF-4 decisions legally correct? In view of this, this article aims to critically analyze the decisions of the TRF-4 in this sense and the main arguments used, in order to verify whether they are legally correct or mistaken, due to the lack of a explicit legal provision in this regard, which, in fact, came to be recognized on several occasions by the Brazilian Superior Tribunal of Justice (STJ). The choice of TRF-4 is justified by the significant number of Court decisions in this regard, as well as by the fact that the other Federal Regional Courts do not have sentences with this content and intention. The theoretical framework uses productions related to criminal execution and its principles of legality and jurisdiction. The research concludes that the aforementioned decisional action of the TRF-4 is out of step with the principles of legality and jurisdictionality in criminal execution.","PeriodicalId":41933,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal","volume":"9 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legalidade “versus” jurisdicionalidade na execução penal? Ônus financeiro da monitoração eletrônica em decisões do TRF-4\",\"authors\":\"Thyerrí José Cruz Silva, Samyle Regina Matos Oliveira\",\"doi\":\"10.22197/rbdpp.v10i1.872\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Criminal execution is a state activity based on the principles of certain, strict and exhaustive legality and jurisdictionality, which is why the rights and duties of prisoners must always comply with legal provisions. Despite this, the Brazilian Regional Federal Court of the 4th Region (TRF-4) has been imposed on the monitored person the burden of bearing the expenses arising from electronic monitoring, a burden that is not supported by Brazilian legislation that deals with the subject. For this reason, it is necessary to question, as a research problem: are these TRF-4 decisions legally correct? In view of this, this article aims to critically analyze the decisions of the TRF-4 in this sense and the main arguments used, in order to verify whether they are legally correct or mistaken, due to the lack of a explicit legal provision in this regard, which, in fact, came to be recognized on several occasions by the Brazilian Superior Tribunal of Justice (STJ). The choice of TRF-4 is justified by the significant number of Court decisions in this regard, as well as by the fact that the other Federal Regional Courts do not have sentences with this content and intention. The theoretical framework uses productions related to criminal execution and its principles of legality and jurisdiction. The research concludes that the aforementioned decisional action of the TRF-4 is out of step with the principles of legality and jurisdictionality in criminal execution.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41933,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal\",\"volume\":\"9 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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.v10i1.872\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v10i1.872","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

摘要

刑事执行是一项基于确定、严格和详尽的合法性和管辖权原则的国家活动,因此囚犯的权利和义务必须始终符合法律规定。尽管如此,巴西第 4 地区联邦法院(TRF-4)却要求被监控者承担电子监控所产生的费用,而这一负担并没有得到巴西相关法律的支持。因此,有必要作为一个研究问题提出质疑:TRF-4 的这些决定在法律上是否正确?有鉴于此,本文旨在批判性地分析 TRF-4 在这一意义上的决定以及所使用的主要论据,以核实这些决定在法律上是正确的还是错误的,因为在这方面缺乏明确的法律规定,而事实上,巴西高等法院(STJ)已在多个场合承认了这一点。之所以选择 TRF-4,是因为法院在这方面做出了大量判决,而且其他联邦地区法院也没有这种内容和意图的判决。理论框架使用了与刑事执行及其合法性和管辖权原则相关的产品。研究得出结论,TRF-4 的上述判决行为不符合刑事执行的合法性和管辖权原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Legalidade “versus” jurisdicionalidade na execução penal? Ônus financeiro da monitoração eletrônica em decisões do TRF-4
Criminal execution is a state activity based on the principles of certain, strict and exhaustive legality and jurisdictionality, which is why the rights and duties of prisoners must always comply with legal provisions. Despite this, the Brazilian Regional Federal Court of the 4th Region (TRF-4) has been imposed on the monitored person the burden of bearing the expenses arising from electronic monitoring, a burden that is not supported by Brazilian legislation that deals with the subject. For this reason, it is necessary to question, as a research problem: are these TRF-4 decisions legally correct? In view of this, this article aims to critically analyze the decisions of the TRF-4 in this sense and the main arguments used, in order to verify whether they are legally correct or mistaken, due to the lack of a explicit legal provision in this regard, which, in fact, came to be recognized on several occasions by the Brazilian Superior Tribunal of Justice (STJ). The choice of TRF-4 is justified by the significant number of Court decisions in this regard, as well as by the fact that the other Federal Regional Courts do not have sentences with this content and intention. The theoretical framework uses productions related to criminal execution and its principles of legality and jurisdiction. The research concludes that the aforementioned decisional action of the TRF-4 is out of step with the principles of legality and jurisdictionality in criminal execution.
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
66.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信