A redução da maioridade penal no Brasil: uma perspectiva jurídico-constitucional

• Ano de defesa: 2016
• Autor(a) principal: Cartaxo, Leila Regina de Brito Andrade
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Brasil; UFRN; PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM DIREITO
• Palavras-chave em Português: Maioridade penal; Redução; Inimputabilidade; Imputação; Cláusula pétrea; CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.ufrn.br/jspui/handle/123456789/21501

This work has the main objective to analyze the legal and constitutional legitimacy of the legal age reduction in Brazil. The work intends to demonstrate the philosophical, moral and legal assumptions that imputation is based on. From the defense that only with a careful look one can reach the proper imputation, the non-chargeability requirements of the people who have not reached the legal age will be described and identified which dictates that set. Throughout the text, the historical context in which it was fixed the minimum criminal age of eighteen years-old will be highlighted, and in which aspect this prediction would be inserted into the foundation clauses. The theme study reveals the society concern with increasing violence and the dissemination by the media of the minimum criminal age reduction as the “magic” solution. From there, it was approached the social element and violence statistics, through the criminal legal interpretation value in the light of fundamental rights and guarantees the respect of the principles, in particular human dignity. It adopts bibliographical research as research methodology, including the exploration of doctrine, legislation, treaties and general conventions. The analysis aims to determine that the resolution of the violence problem cannot justify the reduction and, at the same time, there is no consistency in analyzing a redefinition of a reduction in the age of imputation of people in Brazilian law, because there is legal foundation of punishment for adolescents in conflict with the law. Thus, based on the theoretical and empirical elements listed in the development, it is clear, finally, the unconstitutionality of the proposal, given the impossibility of changing a foundation clause.