Limites à discricionariedade do Ministério Público no oferecimento do acordo de não persecução penal
| Ano de defesa: | 2024 |
|---|---|
| Autor(a) principal: | |
| Orientador(a): | |
| Banca de defesa: | |
| Tipo de documento: | Dissertação |
| Tipo de acesso: | Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: | por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
| Departamento: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
| País: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: | |
| Link de acesso: | http://repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/76953 |
Resumo: | Consensual or negotiated criminal justice has been adopted by several countries since the end of the 20th century. It is not an isolated experience, but a global phenomenon, which encompasses States with common law and civil law traditions, in accordance with the particularities of each legal system. Although the existence of this model of justice is criticized, the current state of affairs shows the consolidation of the scenario of consensus and negotiation in the criminal sphere, so the search for an understanding of consensual institutes according to Federal Constitution is meaningful. From this perspective, the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) can be seen as a benefit to the defendant, notably because it allows the elimination of the possibility of punishment. Thus, the study about the refusal of the Public Prosecutor to offer the agreement is relevant, since it will prevent the defendant from obtaining a benefit for himself. In this context, the aim of this research is to identify the limits to the Public Prosecutor's discretion in deciding whether or not to offer a NPA. With this purpose, this resarch intends to answer the following question: what means can be useful in limiting the discretion of the Public Prosecutor regarding the choice of wheter or not to offer a proposal for a NPA? Therefore, initially, the essential aspects for understanding the NPA, as the most recent consensual mechanism incorporated into the Brazilian legal system, are presented. This is followed by an analysis of the relevant topics surrounding the prosecutor’s offer of a NPA. Finally, limits are establish on the discretion of the Public Prosecutor's Office in choosing whether or not to offer an NPA. The research presents a qualitative approach and is characterized mainly as exploratory, using as techniques the documentary and bibliographical analysis. The conclusion is that the following are useful means of limiting the Public Prosecutor's discretion as to whether or not to offer a NPA: i) internal control within the Public Prosecutor's Office, as provided for in article 28-A, §14, of the Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure; ii) judicial control over the legality of the refusal, notably by the rejection of the criminal charge; iii) the inadmissibility of the Public Prosecutor's Office creating abstract prohibitions on offering the NPA. |
| id |
UFC-7_2526d4e11c3e851339be5c5113201197 |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.ufc.br:riufc/76953 |
| network_acronym_str |
UFC-7 |
| network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) |
| repository_id_str |
|
| spelling |
Siqueira, Ana Beatriz Barros deRebouças, Sérgio Bruno Araújo2024-05-27T14:10:41Z2024-05-27T14:10:41Z2024SIQUEIRA, Ana Beatriz Barros de. Limites à discricionariedade do Ministério Público no oferecimento do acordo de não persecução penal. 2024. 120 f. : Dissertação (Mestrado em Direito) - Faculdade de Direito, Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, 2024.http://repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/76953Consensual or negotiated criminal justice has been adopted by several countries since the end of the 20th century. It is not an isolated experience, but a global phenomenon, which encompasses States with common law and civil law traditions, in accordance with the particularities of each legal system. Although the existence of this model of justice is criticized, the current state of affairs shows the consolidation of the scenario of consensus and negotiation in the criminal sphere, so the search for an understanding of consensual institutes according to Federal Constitution is meaningful. From this perspective, the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) can be seen as a benefit to the defendant, notably because it allows the elimination of the possibility of punishment. Thus, the study about the refusal of the Public Prosecutor to offer the agreement is relevant, since it will prevent the defendant from obtaining a benefit for himself. In this context, the aim of this research is to identify the limits to the Public Prosecutor's discretion in deciding whether or not to offer a NPA. With this purpose, this resarch intends to answer the following question: what means can be useful in limiting the discretion of the Public Prosecutor regarding the choice of wheter or not to offer a proposal for a NPA? Therefore, initially, the essential aspects for understanding the NPA, as the most recent consensual mechanism incorporated into the Brazilian legal system, are presented. This is followed by an analysis of the relevant topics surrounding the prosecutor’s offer of a NPA. Finally, limits are establish on the discretion of the Public Prosecutor's Office in choosing whether or not to offer an NPA. The research presents a qualitative approach and is characterized mainly as exploratory, using as techniques the documentary and bibliographical analysis. The conclusion is that the following are useful means of limiting the Public Prosecutor's discretion as to whether or not to offer a NPA: i) internal control within the Public Prosecutor's Office, as provided for in article 28-A, §14, of the Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure; ii) judicial control over the legality of the refusal, notably by the rejection of the criminal charge; iii) the inadmissibility of the Public Prosecutor's Office creating abstract prohibitions on offering the NPA.A justiça penal consensual ou negocial vem sendo adotada por diversos países desde o final do século XX. Não se trata de experiência isolada, mas de um fenômeno global, que abrange Estados de tradição common law e civil law, de acordo com as particularidades de cada ordenamento jurídico. Embora se critique a existência desse modelo de justiça, o estado atual mostra a consolidação do cenário de consenso e negociação na esfera penal, de modo que se mostra oportuna a busca por uma compreensão dos institutos consensuais à luz da Constituição Federal. Nessa perspectiva, o ANPP pode ser visto como um benefício ao imputado, notadamente por possibilitar a extinção da punibilidade. Assim, a negativa do Ministério Público ao oferecimento do acordo assume relevância, visto que impedirá o réu de obter um benefício para si. Nesse contexto, o objetivo geral desta pesquisa consiste em identificar quais os limites à discricionariedade do Ministério Público na decisão pelo oferecimento ou não do ANPP. Com esse objetivo, pretende-se responder à seguinte pergunta-problema: quais meios podem ser úteis à limitação da discricionariedade do Ministério Público quanto à escolha pelo oferecimento ou não de proposta de acordo de não persecução penal? Para tanto, inicialmente, trata-se de aspectos essenciais para a compreensão do ANPP, enquanto o mais recente mecanismo consensual incorporado ao ordenamento jurídico brasileiro. Em seguida, analisa-se tópicos relevantes em torno do oferecimento do acordo pelo órgão ministerial. Ao final, são definidos limites à discricionariedade do Ministério Público na escolha pelo oferecimento ou não de proposta de ANPP. A pesquisa apresenta abordagem qualitativa e se caracteriza principalmente como exploratória, empregando como técnicas as análises documental, jurisprudencial e bibliográfica de acerca do assunto. Conclui-se que, como meios úteis à limitação da discricionariedade do Ministério Público quanto à escolha pelo oferecimento ou não de proposta de acordo, tem-se: i) o controle interno, no âmbito do Ministério Público, previsto no art. 28-A, §14, do CPP; ii) o controle judicial sobre a legalidade da recusa, notadamente por meio da rejeição liminar da denúncia; iii) a inadmissibilidade da criação pelo Ministério Público de vedações em abstrato ao oferecimento do ANPP.Limites à discricionariedade do Ministério Público no oferecimento do acordo de não persecução penalinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisJustiça penalAcordo de não persecução penalDiscricionariedadeCNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADASinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessporreponame:Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)instname:Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)instacron:UFChttps://orcid.org/0009-0004-4085-7815http://lattes.cnpq.br/5418365923212658https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6716-2950http://lattes.cnpq.br/32494580565736612024ORIGINAL2024_dis_abbsiqueira.pdf2024_dis_abbsiqueira.pdfapplication/pdf1313334http://repositorio.ufc.br/bitstream/riufc/76953/1/2024_dis_abbsiqueira.pdfdc059612b2883d4335661757ea004208MD51LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-81748http://repositorio.ufc.br/bitstream/riufc/76953/2/license.txt8a4605be74aa9ea9d79846c1fba20a33MD52riufc/769532024-05-27 11:10:41.462oai:repositorio.ufc.br:riufc/76953Tk9URTogUExBQ0UgWU9VUiBPV04gTElDRU5TRSBIRVJFClRoaXMgc2FtcGxlIGxpY2Vuc2UgaXMgcHJvdmlkZWQgZm9yIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uYWwgcHVycG9zZXMgb25seS4KCk5PTi1FWENMVVNJVkUgRElTVFJJQlVUSU9OIExJQ0VOU0UKCkJ5IHNpZ25pbmcgYW5kIHN1Ym1pdHRpbmcgdGhpcyBsaWNlbnNlLCB5b3UgKHRoZSBhdXRob3Iocykgb3IgY29weXJpZ2h0Cm93bmVyKSBncmFudHMgdG8gRFNwYWNlIFVuaXZlcnNpdHkgKERTVSkgdGhlIG5vbi1leGNsdXNpdmUgcmlnaHQgdG8gcmVwcm9kdWNlLAp0cmFuc2xhdGUgKGFzIGRlZmluZWQgYmVsb3cpLCBhbmQvb3IgZGlzdHJpYnV0ZSB5b3VyIHN1Ym1pc3Npb24gKGluY2x1ZGluZwp0aGUgYWJzdHJhY3QpIHdvcmxkd2lkZSBpbiBwcmludCBhbmQgZWxlY3Ryb25pYyBmb3JtYXQgYW5kIGluIGFueSBtZWRpdW0sCmluY2x1ZGluZyBidXQgbm90IGxpbWl0ZWQgdG8gYXVkaW8gb3IgdmlkZW8uCgpZb3UgYWdyZWUgdGhhdCBEU1UgbWF5LCB3aXRob3V0IGNoYW5naW5nIHRoZSBjb250ZW50LCB0cmFuc2xhdGUgdGhlCnN1Ym1pc3Npb24gdG8gYW55IG1lZGl1bSBvciBmb3JtYXQgZm9yIHRoZSBwdXJwb3NlIG9mIHByZXNlcnZhdGlvbi4KCllvdSBhbHNvIGFncmVlIHRoYXQgRFNVIG1heSBrZWVwIG1vcmUgdGhhbiBvbmUgY29weSBvZiB0aGlzIHN1Ym1pc3Npb24gZm9yCnB1cnBvc2VzIG9mIHNlY3VyaXR5LCBiYWNrLXVwIGFuZCBwcmVzZXJ2YXRpb24uCgpZb3UgcmVwcmVzZW50IHRoYXQgdGhlIHN1Ym1pc3Npb24gaXMgeW91ciBvcmlnaW5hbCB3b3JrLCBhbmQgdGhhdCB5b3UgaGF2ZQp0aGUgcmlnaHQgdG8gZ3JhbnQgdGhlIHJpZ2h0cyBjb250YWluZWQgaW4gdGhpcyBsaWNlbnNlLiBZb3UgYWxzbyByZXByZXNlbnQKdGhhdCB5b3VyIHN1Ym1pc3Npb24gZG9lcyBub3QsIHRvIHRoZSBiZXN0IG9mIHlvdXIga25vd2xlZGdlLCBpbmZyaW5nZSB1cG9uCmFueW9uZSdzIGNvcHlyaWdodC4KCklmIHRoZSBzdWJtaXNzaW9uIGNvbnRhaW5zIG1hdGVyaWFsIGZvciB3aGljaCB5b3UgZG8gbm90IGhvbGQgY29weXJpZ2h0LAp5b3UgcmVwcmVzZW50IHRoYXQgeW91IGhhdmUgb2J0YWluZWQgdGhlIHVucmVzdHJpY3RlZCBwZXJtaXNzaW9uIG9mIHRoZQpjb3B5cmlnaHQgb3duZXIgdG8gZ3JhbnQgRFNVIHRoZSByaWdodHMgcmVxdWlyZWQgYnkgdGhpcyBsaWNlbnNlLCBhbmQgdGhhdApzdWNoIHRoaXJkLXBhcnR5IG93bmVkIG1hdGVyaWFsIGlzIGNsZWFybHkgaWRlbnRpZmllZCBhbmQgYWNrbm93bGVkZ2VkCndpdGhpbiB0aGUgdGV4dCBvciBjb250ZW50IG9mIHRoZSBzdWJtaXNzaW9uLgoKSUYgVEhFIFNVQk1JU1NJT04gSVMgQkFTRUQgVVBPTiBXT1JLIFRIQVQgSEFTIEJFRU4gU1BPTlNPUkVEIE9SIFNVUFBPUlRFRApCWSBBTiBBR0VOQ1kgT1IgT1JHQU5JWkFUSU9OIE9USEVSIFRIQU4gRFNVLCBZT1UgUkVQUkVTRU5UIFRIQVQgWU9VIEhBVkUKRlVMRklMTEVEIEFOWSBSSUdIVCBPRiBSRVZJRVcgT1IgT1RIRVIgT0JMSUdBVElPTlMgUkVRVUlSRUQgQlkgU1VDSApDT05UUkFDVCBPUiBBR1JFRU1FTlQuCgpEU1Ugd2lsbCBjbGVhcmx5IGlkZW50aWZ5IHlvdXIgbmFtZShzKSBhcyB0aGUgYXV0aG9yKHMpIG9yIG93bmVyKHMpIG9mIHRoZQpzdWJtaXNzaW9uLCBhbmQgd2lsbCBub3QgbWFrZSBhbnkgYWx0ZXJhdGlvbiwgb3RoZXIgdGhhbiBhcyBhbGxvd2VkIGJ5IHRoaXMKbGljZW5zZSwgdG8geW91ciBzdWJtaXNzaW9uLgo=Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://www.repositorio.ufc.br/ri-oai/requestbu@ufc.br || repositorio@ufc.bropendoar:2024-05-27T14:10:41Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) - Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)false |
| dc.title.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Limites à discricionariedade do Ministério Público no oferecimento do acordo de não persecução penal |
| title |
Limites à discricionariedade do Ministério Público no oferecimento do acordo de não persecução penal |
| spellingShingle |
Limites à discricionariedade do Ministério Público no oferecimento do acordo de não persecução penal Siqueira, Ana Beatriz Barros de CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS Justiça penal Acordo de não persecução penal Discricionariedade |
| title_short |
Limites à discricionariedade do Ministério Público no oferecimento do acordo de não persecução penal |
| title_full |
Limites à discricionariedade do Ministério Público no oferecimento do acordo de não persecução penal |
| title_fullStr |
Limites à discricionariedade do Ministério Público no oferecimento do acordo de não persecução penal |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Limites à discricionariedade do Ministério Público no oferecimento do acordo de não persecução penal |
| title_sort |
Limites à discricionariedade do Ministério Público no oferecimento do acordo de não persecução penal |
| author |
Siqueira, Ana Beatriz Barros de |
| author_facet |
Siqueira, Ana Beatriz Barros de |
| author_role |
author |
| dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Siqueira, Ana Beatriz Barros de |
| dc.contributor.advisor1.fl_str_mv |
Rebouças, Sérgio Bruno Araújo |
| contributor_str_mv |
Rebouças, Sérgio Bruno Araújo |
| dc.subject.cnpq.fl_str_mv |
CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS |
| topic |
CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS Justiça penal Acordo de não persecução penal Discricionariedade |
| dc.subject.ptbr.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Justiça penal Acordo de não persecução penal Discricionariedade |
| description |
Consensual or negotiated criminal justice has been adopted by several countries since the end of the 20th century. It is not an isolated experience, but a global phenomenon, which encompasses States with common law and civil law traditions, in accordance with the particularities of each legal system. Although the existence of this model of justice is criticized, the current state of affairs shows the consolidation of the scenario of consensus and negotiation in the criminal sphere, so the search for an understanding of consensual institutes according to Federal Constitution is meaningful. From this perspective, the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) can be seen as a benefit to the defendant, notably because it allows the elimination of the possibility of punishment. Thus, the study about the refusal of the Public Prosecutor to offer the agreement is relevant, since it will prevent the defendant from obtaining a benefit for himself. In this context, the aim of this research is to identify the limits to the Public Prosecutor's discretion in deciding whether or not to offer a NPA. With this purpose, this resarch intends to answer the following question: what means can be useful in limiting the discretion of the Public Prosecutor regarding the choice of wheter or not to offer a proposal for a NPA? Therefore, initially, the essential aspects for understanding the NPA, as the most recent consensual mechanism incorporated into the Brazilian legal system, are presented. This is followed by an analysis of the relevant topics surrounding the prosecutor’s offer of a NPA. Finally, limits are establish on the discretion of the Public Prosecutor's Office in choosing whether or not to offer an NPA. The research presents a qualitative approach and is characterized mainly as exploratory, using as techniques the documentary and bibliographical analysis. The conclusion is that the following are useful means of limiting the Public Prosecutor's discretion as to whether or not to offer a NPA: i) internal control within the Public Prosecutor's Office, as provided for in article 28-A, §14, of the Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure; ii) judicial control over the legality of the refusal, notably by the rejection of the criminal charge; iii) the inadmissibility of the Public Prosecutor's Office creating abstract prohibitions on offering the NPA. |
| publishDate |
2024 |
| dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv |
2024-05-27T14:10:41Z |
| dc.date.available.fl_str_mv |
2024-05-27T14:10:41Z |
| dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv |
2024 |
| dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| format |
masterThesis |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.citation.fl_str_mv |
SIQUEIRA, Ana Beatriz Barros de. Limites à discricionariedade do Ministério Público no oferecimento do acordo de não persecução penal. 2024. 120 f. : Dissertação (Mestrado em Direito) - Faculdade de Direito, Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, 2024. |
| dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/76953 |
| identifier_str_mv |
SIQUEIRA, Ana Beatriz Barros de. Limites à discricionariedade do Ministério Público no oferecimento do acordo de não persecução penal. 2024. 120 f. : Dissertação (Mestrado em Direito) - Faculdade de Direito, Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, 2024. |
| url |
http://repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/76953 |
| dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
| language |
por |
| dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) instname:Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) instacron:UFC |
| instname_str |
Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) |
| instacron_str |
UFC |
| institution |
UFC |
| reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) |
| collection |
Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) |
| bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
http://repositorio.ufc.br/bitstream/riufc/76953/1/2024_dis_abbsiqueira.pdf http://repositorio.ufc.br/bitstream/riufc/76953/2/license.txt |
| bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
dc059612b2883d4335661757ea004208 8a4605be74aa9ea9d79846c1fba20a33 |
| bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) - Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
bu@ufc.br || repositorio@ufc.br |
| _version_ |
1847793360788520960 |