不惜一切代价的监禁:巴西法院推理中的贩毒和监禁

Q3 Social Sciences
M. Machado, Mariana Celano de Souza Amaral, Matheus de Barros, Ana Clara Klink de Melo
{"title":"不惜一切代价的监禁:巴西法院推理中的贩毒和监禁","authors":"M. Machado, Mariana Celano de Souza Amaral, Matheus de Barros, Ana Clara Klink de Melo","doi":"10.31389/JIED.37","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Brazil has the third largest prison population worldwide—over 700,000 people. At least 28% of them are in prison for drug trafficking. Given that situation, this paper explores the conflicts among the law; the Supremo Tribunal Federal, or Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) and lower court precedents. Based on a qualitative and quantitative study of Tribunal de Justica de Sao Paulo, or Sao Paulo State Supreme Court (TJSP) and Superior Tribunal de Justica, or Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) decisions between 2017 and 2018, this paper focuses on the arguments put forward by those courts to prevent the imposition of non-custodial sanctions on people convicted of drug trafficking even though they may be first-time offenders with no criminal record. Our research shows the main arguments used are related to the amount, type and variety of seized drugs; the convict’s criminal history; the person’s employment status at the time of arrest and the insufficiency of non-custodial sentences in cases of drug trafficking. Our conclusion is that the reasoning behind convictions for drug trafficking favors imprisonment even in situations in which the law and the STF precedents would allow non-custodial sentences. Com mais de 700 mil pessoas presas, o Brasil ocupa o terceiro lugar no ranking dos paises que mais encarceram. Desse total, ao menos 28% estao presas  por trafico de drogas. Diante desse quadro, este texto explora as disputas que se estabelecem entre a lei, o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) e a jurisprudencia dos tribunais inferiores. A partir de estudo qualitativo e quantitativo de decisoes do Tribunal de Justica de Sao Paulo (TJSP) e do Superior Tribunal de Justica (STJ) de 2017 e 2018, este texto revela os argumentos construidos judicialmente para impedir a aplicacao de sancoes nao prisionais a pessoas condenadas por trafico, mesmo quando primarias e consideradas com bons antecedentes. De acordo com a pesquisa, os principais argumentos utilizados dizem respeito a quantidade, qualidade e diversidade de drogas aprendidas, a passagem anterior da pessoa condenada pelo sistema de justica, a situacao laboral da pessoa no momento de sua prisao e, ainda, a insuficiencia da pena nao prisional em caso de trafico. O texto conclui que a fundamentacao das sentencas condenatorias em casos de trafico favorece a aplicacao da pena de prisao, mesmo em situacoes nas quais o arranjo normativo e a jurisprudencia do STF permitiriam decisoes desencarceradoras.  Publisher's Note: This article has been published in both Portuguese and English. To download the Portuguese version, click the \"Download\" link and select \"PDF (PT)\". Este artigo foi publicado tanto em Ingles, como em Portugues. Para baixar a versao em Portugues, clique \"Download\" e depois selecione \"PDF (PT)\".","PeriodicalId":73784,"journal":{"name":"Journal of illicit economies and development","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Incarcerating at Any Cost: Drug Trafficking and Imprisonment in Brazilian\\n Court Reasoning\",\"authors\":\"M. Machado, Mariana Celano de Souza Amaral, Matheus de Barros, Ana Clara Klink de Melo\",\"doi\":\"10.31389/JIED.37\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Brazil has the third largest prison population worldwide—over 700,000 people. At least 28% of them are in prison for drug trafficking. Given that situation, this paper explores the conflicts among the law; the Supremo Tribunal Federal, or Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) and lower court precedents. Based on a qualitative and quantitative study of Tribunal de Justica de Sao Paulo, or Sao Paulo State Supreme Court (TJSP) and Superior Tribunal de Justica, or Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) decisions between 2017 and 2018, this paper focuses on the arguments put forward by those courts to prevent the imposition of non-custodial sanctions on people convicted of drug trafficking even though they may be first-time offenders with no criminal record. Our research shows the main arguments used are related to the amount, type and variety of seized drugs; the convict’s criminal history; the person’s employment status at the time of arrest and the insufficiency of non-custodial sentences in cases of drug trafficking. Our conclusion is that the reasoning behind convictions for drug trafficking favors imprisonment even in situations in which the law and the STF precedents would allow non-custodial sentences. Com mais de 700 mil pessoas presas, o Brasil ocupa o terceiro lugar no ranking dos paises que mais encarceram. Desse total, ao menos 28% estao presas  por trafico de drogas. Diante desse quadro, este texto explora as disputas que se estabelecem entre a lei, o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) e a jurisprudencia dos tribunais inferiores. A partir de estudo qualitativo e quantitativo de decisoes do Tribunal de Justica de Sao Paulo (TJSP) e do Superior Tribunal de Justica (STJ) de 2017 e 2018, este texto revela os argumentos construidos judicialmente para impedir a aplicacao de sancoes nao prisionais a pessoas condenadas por trafico, mesmo quando primarias e consideradas com bons antecedentes. De acordo com a pesquisa, os principais argumentos utilizados dizem respeito a quantidade, qualidade e diversidade de drogas aprendidas, a passagem anterior da pessoa condenada pelo sistema de justica, a situacao laboral da pessoa no momento de sua prisao e, ainda, a insuficiencia da pena nao prisional em caso de trafico. O texto conclui que a fundamentacao das sentencas condenatorias em casos de trafico favorece a aplicacao da pena de prisao, mesmo em situacoes nas quais o arranjo normativo e a jurisprudencia do STF permitiriam decisoes desencarceradoras.  Publisher's Note: This article has been published in both Portuguese and English. To download the Portuguese version, click the \\\"Download\\\" link and select \\\"PDF (PT)\\\". Este artigo foi publicado tanto em Ingles, como em Portugues. Para baixar a versao em Portugues, clique \\\"Download\\\" e depois selecione \\\"PDF (PT)\\\".\",\"PeriodicalId\":73784,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of illicit economies and development\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of illicit economies and development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31389/JIED.37\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of illicit economies and development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31389/JIED.37","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

巴西拥有世界第三大监狱人口——超过70万人。其中至少28%的人因贩毒入狱。在这种情况下,本文探讨了法律之间的冲突;联邦最高法院,或巴西联邦最高法院(STF)和下级法院的判例。本文基于对圣保罗法院、圣保罗州最高法院(TJSP)、高等法院或巴西高等法院(STJ) 2017年至2018年间判决的定性和定量研究,重点研究了这些法院提出的论点,以防止对被判犯有贩毒罪的人实施非监禁制裁,即使他们可能是没有犯罪记录的初犯。我们的研究表明,使用的主要论点与缉获毒品的数量、类型和品种有关;罪犯的犯罪记录;被逮捕者在被逮捕时的就业状况,以及在贩毒案件中没有足够的非监禁判决。我们的结论是,即使在法律和STF先例允许非监禁判决的情况下,对贩毒定罪的理由也有利于监禁。Com的销售额达到了7亿比索,因此巴西占据了全球最大的糖果市场,没有排名,没有排名。总而言之,有28%的人认为这是交通污染。在联邦最高法院(STF)和在下级法庭(tribunais下级法庭)的判例中,对争议进行探讨的文本是:在圣保罗法院(TJSP)和高级法院(STJ)于2017年和2018年作出的定性和定量决定中,有一份文本揭示了关于司法障碍的构成和适用的论点,即关于法律规定、法律规定和法律规定、法律规定和法律规定、法律规定和法律规定,以及法律规定和法律规定。根据法律的规定,依据法律的原则,依据法律的规定,依据法律的规定,依据法律的规定,依据法律的规定,依据法律的规定,依据法律的规定,依据法律的规定,依据法律的规定,依据法律的规定,依据法律的规定,依据法律的规定,依据法律的规定,依据法律的规定,依据法律的规定,依据法律的规定,依据法律的规定,依据法律的规定,依据法律的规定,依据法律的规定。在结论性基本原则的文本中,如在刑事案件中适用刑事案件,则在刑事案件中适用刑事案件,在刑事案件中适用刑事案件,在刑事案件中适用刑事案件,在刑事案件中适用刑事案件,在刑事案件中适用刑事案件。作者注:本文以葡萄牙语和英语两种语言发布。如欲下载葡语版本,请按“下载”连结并选择“PDF (PT)”。“我的祖国,我的祖国,我的祖国,我的祖国。Para baixar和veresugues, clique“下载”和存款选择“PDF (PT)”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Incarcerating at Any Cost: Drug Trafficking and Imprisonment in Brazilian Court Reasoning
Brazil has the third largest prison population worldwide—over 700,000 people. At least 28% of them are in prison for drug trafficking. Given that situation, this paper explores the conflicts among the law; the Supremo Tribunal Federal, or Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) and lower court precedents. Based on a qualitative and quantitative study of Tribunal de Justica de Sao Paulo, or Sao Paulo State Supreme Court (TJSP) and Superior Tribunal de Justica, or Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) decisions between 2017 and 2018, this paper focuses on the arguments put forward by those courts to prevent the imposition of non-custodial sanctions on people convicted of drug trafficking even though they may be first-time offenders with no criminal record. Our research shows the main arguments used are related to the amount, type and variety of seized drugs; the convict’s criminal history; the person’s employment status at the time of arrest and the insufficiency of non-custodial sentences in cases of drug trafficking. Our conclusion is that the reasoning behind convictions for drug trafficking favors imprisonment even in situations in which the law and the STF precedents would allow non-custodial sentences. Com mais de 700 mil pessoas presas, o Brasil ocupa o terceiro lugar no ranking dos paises que mais encarceram. Desse total, ao menos 28% estao presas  por trafico de drogas. Diante desse quadro, este texto explora as disputas que se estabelecem entre a lei, o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) e a jurisprudencia dos tribunais inferiores. A partir de estudo qualitativo e quantitativo de decisoes do Tribunal de Justica de Sao Paulo (TJSP) e do Superior Tribunal de Justica (STJ) de 2017 e 2018, este texto revela os argumentos construidos judicialmente para impedir a aplicacao de sancoes nao prisionais a pessoas condenadas por trafico, mesmo quando primarias e consideradas com bons antecedentes. De acordo com a pesquisa, os principais argumentos utilizados dizem respeito a quantidade, qualidade e diversidade de drogas aprendidas, a passagem anterior da pessoa condenada pelo sistema de justica, a situacao laboral da pessoa no momento de sua prisao e, ainda, a insuficiencia da pena nao prisional em caso de trafico. O texto conclui que a fundamentacao das sentencas condenatorias em casos de trafico favorece a aplicacao da pena de prisao, mesmo em situacoes nas quais o arranjo normativo e a jurisprudencia do STF permitiriam decisoes desencarceradoras.  Publisher's Note: This article has been published in both Portuguese and English. To download the Portuguese version, click the "Download" link and select "PDF (PT)". Este artigo foi publicado tanto em Ingles, como em Portugues. Para baixar a versao em Portugues, clique "Download" e depois selecione "PDF (PT)".
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
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
38 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:604180095
Book学术官方微信