A prova no crime organizado e os direitos e garantias fundamentais do acusado
Carregando...
Arquivos
Data
2017-10-20
Autores
Sousa, Danilo da Cunha
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
O modelo de processo penal está intimamente associado à evolução dos regimes políticos ao longo da História. Em períodos totalitários, predomina o modelo inquisitivo-utilitarista, em que o processo é voltado para a obtenção de sentença penal condenatória em favor do Estado. Em Estados democráticos, o processo penal segue o modelo acusatório-garantista, em que se estabelecem direitos e garantias fundamentais em favor do acusado, reconhecido como sujeito hipossuficiente da relação jurídica-processual. A Constituição Federal, ao instituir o Estado Democrático de Direito, adotou modelo de processo penal acusatório-garantista e que deve ser, portanto, seguido pelo legislador ordinário na elaboração das normas e pelo juiz ao aplicá-las. Ocorre que o fenômeno do crime organizado, apesar de não reconhecido como categoria própria por parte da doutrina, coloca em risco bens jurídicos relevantes à sociedade, como a própria democracia e, diante da sua complexidade, os meios tradicionais de prova não são capazes de lhe dar resposta, o que exige a elaboração de meios de prova específicos à sua persecução. No Brasil, atualmente, os meios de prova do crime organizado estão regulamentados na Lei n. 12.850/2013. O objetivo do presente trabalho consiste em analisar a constitucionalidade desses meios de prova, que implicam ampliação das prerrogativas do Estado e relativização dos direitos fundamentais do acusado. O exame se dará na forma com que cada meio de prova foi disciplinado na referida Lei. A metodologia procedimental é bibliográfica e o método de abordagem é o hipotético-dedutivo. Ao se assumir a necessidade de haver legislação específica de combate ao crime organizado, não se deixa de olvidar que meios de prova não podem desconsiderar o sistema processual penal constitucional acusatório-garantista. A proporcionalidade impõe sopesamento ao legislador no momento de elaborar a lei e ponderação ao juiz ao aplicá-la. A conclusão que se chega é que não se pode, de plano, sustentar inconstitucionalidade dos meios de prova do crime organizado, porque ampliam os poderes persecutórios do Estado. Exige-se a análise da forma com que cada um deles foi disciplinado pela lei ordinária para se apontar se houve justificativa constitucional para a restrição de direitos fundamentais do acusado.
The criminal procedure model is intimately associated with the political regimes’ evolution throughout history. In totalitarian periods, the inquisitive-utilitarian model is predominant and the process is directed towards obtaining a condemnatory criminal sentence in the State’s favor. In democratic states, criminal process follows the accusatory-guaranteeing model, in which fundamental rights and guarantees are established in the accused’s favor that is recognized as a disadvantaged subject by the judiciary-procedural relation. The Constituição Federal, by establishing Democratic State of Law, has adopted the accusatory-guaranteeing criminal process model. Therefore, it should be followed by the ordinary legislator in drafting the rules and by the judge in applying those norms. The organized crime phenomenon, although not recognized as a doctrine proper category, jeopardizes most relevant society legal assets, such as democracy itself, and given its complexity, the traditional means of proof are not capable of responding to it, which requires the elaboration of specific evidence for its prosecution. Today in Brazil, the means of proof of organized crime are regulated by the Law n. 12,850/2013. This paper work aims to analyze the constitutionality of these means of proof, which imply an amplification of the State prerogatives and relativization of the accused’s fundamental rights. The analysis will take place in the manner in which each means of proof has been disciplined in the above Law. The procedural methodology is bibliographical and the method of approach is the hypothetical-deductive. By assuming the need of having a specific legislation to combat organized crime, it is clear that the means of proof cannot disregard the accusatory-guaranteeing constitutional criminal procedural system. Proportionality imposes the legislator’s balancing when drawing up the law and the judge’s weighting when applying it. The conclusion reached is that one can not, on the whole, maintain unconstitutionality of the means of proof of organized crime, because they extend the persecutory powers of the State. It is required to analyze the way in which each of them was disciplined by ordinary law to indicate if there was constitutional justification for the restriction of the fundamental rights of the accused.
The criminal procedure model is intimately associated with the political regimes’ evolution throughout history. In totalitarian periods, the inquisitive-utilitarian model is predominant and the process is directed towards obtaining a condemnatory criminal sentence in the State’s favor. In democratic states, criminal process follows the accusatory-guaranteeing model, in which fundamental rights and guarantees are established in the accused’s favor that is recognized as a disadvantaged subject by the judiciary-procedural relation. The Constituição Federal, by establishing Democratic State of Law, has adopted the accusatory-guaranteeing criminal process model. Therefore, it should be followed by the ordinary legislator in drafting the rules and by the judge in applying those norms. The organized crime phenomenon, although not recognized as a doctrine proper category, jeopardizes most relevant society legal assets, such as democracy itself, and given its complexity, the traditional means of proof are not capable of responding to it, which requires the elaboration of specific evidence for its prosecution. Today in Brazil, the means of proof of organized crime are regulated by the Law n. 12,850/2013. This paper work aims to analyze the constitutionality of these means of proof, which imply an amplification of the State prerogatives and relativization of the accused’s fundamental rights. The analysis will take place in the manner in which each means of proof has been disciplined in the above Law. The procedural methodology is bibliographical and the method of approach is the hypothetical-deductive. By assuming the need of having a specific legislation to combat organized crime, it is clear that the means of proof cannot disregard the accusatory-guaranteeing constitutional criminal procedural system. Proportionality imposes the legislator’s balancing when drawing up the law and the judge’s weighting when applying it. The conclusion reached is that one can not, on the whole, maintain unconstitutionality of the means of proof of organized crime, because they extend the persecutory powers of the State. It is required to analyze the way in which each of them was disciplined by ordinary law to indicate if there was constitutional justification for the restriction of the fundamental rights of the accused.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Processo penal constitucional, Direitos fundamentais, Crime organizado, Prova, Constitutional criminal proceedings, Fundamental rights, Organized crime, Proof