As explained by Judge Alexandre Victor de Carvalho, in the Brazilian legal context, preventive detention has been the subject of intense debate, especially regarding the necessity of its maintenance before a final conviction. Recently, the 5th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Justice of the State of Minas Gerais addressed a case involving a defendant accused of attempted simple robbery.
Discover here the details of the case and the highlights of the rapporteur’s vote, which were crucial for the final decision.
What is the justification for preventive detention in the case of attempted simple robbery?
The request for habeas corpus was filed by the defense, arguing that the initial judge’s decision lacked adequate justification for the preventive detention, which was decreed based on arguments considered abstract. The defense contended that there was no concrete justification for maintaining the detention, as the defendant had no significant criminal record. However, the decision of the 5th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Justice was to deny the request for provisional release.
According to jurisprudence, preventive detention is a precautionary measure, meaning it is temporary and aims to guarantee public order, ensure the convenience of the criminal proceedings, or guarantee the application of criminal law. In this case, Judge Alexandre Victor de Carvalho, the rapporteur of the habeas corpus, argued that the defendant’s repeated interactions with the criminal justice system justified the continuation of detention, emphasizing that the defendant’s freedom could pose a risk to public order.
Public Order and Criminal Recidivism: The Vote of Alexandre Victor de Carvalho
Judge Alexandre Victor de Carvalho’s vote carried significant weight in the final decision. In his opinion, he was emphatic in stating that the defendant’s history, marked by repeated criminal acts, was a relevant factor for maintaining preventive detention. In his analysis, he mentioned the understanding that preventive detention does not aim to anticipate punishment but rather to ensure that the accused does not commit further crimes during the judicial process.
@alexandrevictordecarvalh Alexandre Victor De Carvalho: Como o Atraso nas Parcelas Pode Afetar seus Direitos no Financiamento Saiba mais: https://portaltribuna.com.br/noticias/alexandre-victor-de-carvalho #QuemÉAlexandreVictorDeCarvalho #DesembargadorAlexandreVictorDeCarvalho #AlexandreVictorDeCarvalhoTJMG #AlexandreVictorDeCarvalhoCNJ #AlexandreVictorDeCarvalho #OQueAconteceuComAlexandreVictorDeCarvalho
♬ original sound – Alexandre Victor De Carvalho – Alexandre Victor De Carvalho
“The repeated contact of the defendant with the criminal justice system is a justifying reason for caution, as it must not be overlooked that one of the purposes of segregation is precisely to guarantee public order, which consists of preventing the delinquent from committing further offenses,” highlighted the Judge, referencing a well-established position in jurisprudence that considers the risk that the defendant’s freedom may pose to society.
This argument was particularly relevant, as the first-instance judge’s decision indicated that the accused was already being prosecuted for other offenses, suggesting a pattern of criminal behavior. The use of a replica firearm in the attempted robbery was also a decisive factor in understanding that the defendant’s freedom would represent a threat to public safety.
The Impact of the Decision and Its Reflections in Jurisprudence
The case is emblematic, as it highlights the judiciary’s interpretation of the application of preventive detention, especially when considering the defendant’s history. Judge Alexandre Victor de Carvalho’s vote, which advocated for preventive detention to ensure public order, reinforces the need for a careful analysis of the defendant’s background and conduct before making a decision regarding provisional release.
In conclusion, Judge Alexandre Victor de Carvalho’s vote in this case reaffirms the importance of a solid justification for the imposition of precautionary measures, especially when public safety is at stake. Jurisprudence continues to evolve, and the decision of the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais provides important contributions to the analysis of the conditions that justify preventive detention, always considering the complexity of the situations involved.
