The involving Congress and (Supreme Court) to reduce the penalties of convicted by the attacks of January 8, 2023 has already prompted the draft of a proposal that provides for a change in the law to apply lower penalties to those who were present in the acts, but had no planning or financing role.
This initial version of the text was prepared by the Legislative Consulting team subordinate to the President of, (-AP). The expectation of part of the politicians who discuss this plan is that the proposal will be presented in the coming days and can go to the vote during May.
The purpose of this articulation is to reduce the pressure for the approval of a broad amnesty, which nullifies the convictions and can also extend to those accused of commanding an attempted coup d’état, including ().
From the text under discussion, the former president and others accused of articulating the attempted coup would not be favored by the main changes in the law, according to a parliamentary report.
According to Sheet It found, the proposal that is under discussion at the time of Alcolumbre provides for three changes in the so -called Democratic Rule Defense Law.
The main change creates a new criminal type to punish those who perform acts considered against the Democratic Rule of Law, influenced by a crowd. It would be the case with those who were present in the January 8 protests. They would still be punished normally, however, by other crimes such as depredation, which has increased the total conviction time.
Depending on the circumstances of each individual’s involvement, this new crime would replace convictions for attempted violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law and attempted coup d’état. Combined, these two crimes lead to feathers of 8 to 20 years in prison.
No, the new criminal type would have its punishment in a track of two to six years in prison. As the change in the law would be favorable to the accused, she would retroact to benefit those who have already practiced the crimes.
The symbol of Bolsonarism in the amnesty offensive, the hairdresser Débora Rodrigues dos Santos. The sentence provides for five crimes, with the largest penalties for coup (5 years) and violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law (4 years and 6 months).
If the law is changed in the molds suggested by alcohumbre, Debora’s penalty could be reduced by more than 5 years – and, as a result, she would already be entitled to the progression of the sentence for the semi -open regime.
Congress is finalizing a negotiation with the Supreme to pass the law in Parliament.
According to participants in the negotiations, the change in law would have the effect of acceleration on the progression of convicts to the semi -open regime and the release of many of those who were arrested since the attacks of 8 January.
Politicians and some STF ministers believe that these consequences would be enough to reduce charges and bury the broad amnesty proposal.
The government indicates support for the proposal, as Lula’s leader (PT) pointed out in the Senate, Jaques Wagner (PT-BA). Jair Bolsonaro’s PL would be the main obstacle, for defending the broad amnesty, but center parties showed willingness to isolate the former president’s acronym.
Alcolumbre received positive signs from part of the Supreme Ministers in relation to the proposal, but some members of the Court still see the agreement with restrictions.
The president of the Supreme Court, Luís Roberto Barroso, indicated that he would not oppose the change in legislation that altered the penalties related to crimes committed on January 8, 2023.
“The solution to those who think the penalties were excessive is a change in the law. I don’t think it’s the case with amnesty, because amnesty means forgiveness. And what happened is unforgivable. But resize the extent of penalties, if Congress understands well, is within its competence,” Barroso said in an interview with the newspaper O Globo.
According to the minister, a change in law could benefit people who have already been convicted of attacks on the headquarters of the powers. “If the law says they do not accumulate [os crimes de] The coup d’état with the violent abolition of the rule of law, or, instead of treating different crimes, predicting only a penalty increase, it would matter in a reduction, “he said.
In the evaluation of politicians who participate in the conversations, the Supreme Court tends to accept this solution, but should rigorously apply the differentiation between leaders and the crowd, benefiting only those who would be in the unambiguous condition of acts participants.
Still, those involved in the attacks of January 8 would still be punished for any possible crimes, such as depredation and invasion of public building. The new penal type would exclusively replace the coup d’état and the abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law.
A second device of the proposal concerns the duplicate of accusations against those involved in the acts. Currently, Criminal Law provides for the material competition, a principle that penalties accumulate when a person commits two or more crimes in different actions.
According to the draft, the new law would maintain the two criminal types, but create the possibility of conviction only for the abolition of the democratic rule of law, with an aggravating in cases where the outcome of this act is an attempt to coup.
This application of the law would depend on the effective participation of each accused. When the individual has practiced different acts that may fit both in the attempt to abolish the Democratic Rule of Law (Cassation of Minister of the Supreme Court, for example) and attempted coup (to overthrow the constituted government), it could still be framed in both crimes.
The third point of the proposal would be the inclusion in the legislation of a cause of penalties to leaders and responsible for planning these acts. The goal, according to parliamentarians, is to expand rigor against these characters and discourage other similar episodes.
This item would be applied only to future cases, since changes in criminal law only retroacting for benefit, not to harm it.
In the words of a senator who works to accelerate the vote on the proposal is that the change in the law would give the judiciary a greater degree of “elasticity and reasonableness” to apply penalties against those accused by scammer acts.
