Members of the Bolsonarist bench in resist the agreement between Congress and to reduce the penalties of the crowd that invaded the headquarters of the three powers on January 8, 2023. In the trial of Débora Rodrigues dos Santos, a hairdresser who spotted the statue of the Supreme, to justify an amnesty.
“Amnesty has not lost strength and there is no emptying of the theme. The PL is in obstruction in the House,” says Federal Deputy Rosana Valle (PL-SP), citing the movement to try to block or postpone votes.
“Minister Fux’s vote is a sign that a amnesty would pacify the country,” he says. It admits, however, the possibility of writing a new text to make the matter viable.
The proposal of forgiveness, as written today, could benefit the former president (PL), who, according to the Attorney General’s Office), led an attempt to coup.
On Friday (25), for the crimes of attempted abolition of the Democratic State Law, coup, qualified damage against public property, armed criminal association and deterioration of the overturned assets. Following the decision of the rapporteur, Alexandre de Moraes, the ministers Flávio Dino and Cármen Lúcia.
Already Cristiano Zanin voted for a 11 -year sentence, considering attenuating from the accused and smaller penalties for the crimes committed. Fux was isolated by voting for a sentence of one year and six months. He argued that Deborah was convicted of the crime of deterioration of listed assets on the grounds that there is no evidence to support the other accusations.
He also stressed that Deborah did not invade any building and had no help from any criminal association to travel to – PGR report says she paid $ 50 to go from Paulínia (SP), where she lives, to the federal capital.
A day after Deborah’s conviction, former first lady Michelle Bolsonaro praised and thanked Fux for the performance of Fux, considering her a “common sense spark.” “It was not what we wanted, but the posture of Minister Fux – a career judge – was wiser than everyone else, including that of a minister,” Michelle said on social networks.
The PL leader in the House insists on amnesty, citing the minister’s decision. “Fux’s vote was perfect, he himself states that there is no proof against Deborah,” he says. “It’s the pseudogolpe scam falling to the ground.”
Deborah’s trial, transformed into a Bolsonarist symbol, raises a legal discussion with many nuances. Specialists heard by Sheet They evaluate that there was an exaggeration in the penalty of 14 years, but that Fux’s vote cannot be used to justify an amnesty.
Professor of Criminal Law at USP (University of São Paulo), Mariângela Gomes considers the penalty excessive, although it is impossible to disregard, in the way of Fux, its action in the context of January 8. “Her conduct occurs during a movement to testify the elected government,” he says.
Vice-president of IASP (São Paulo Lawyers Institute), Marina Coelho Araújo says Fux analyzed the case of Deborah in particular, while the other ministers came from a collective premise. Therefore, he finds a decision of a year and a half in prison.
She says, however, that no minister has questioned the existence of undemocratic acts. “One thing is a person’s judgment, another thing is to turn it into state policy.”
The goal is to reduce the penalties of the convicts who joined the coup attack, but without participation in planning. In contrast, the mentors of the attempt to blow would be punished with rigor.
Even without amnesty, the agreement would benefit Deborah. If the law is amended, its penalty could be reduced by more than five years, being entitled to progression in semi -open regime. In any case, the experts with whom the report talked agree on a third point about the hairdressing judgment: all criticize the crime contest, that is, the sum of penalties arising from similar infractions in the Penal Code.
FGV Law Professor Rogério Taffarello says it is in favor of absorption in a single article in the case of similar crimes, such as attempt to abolish the Democratic Rule of Law and coup d’état. “It would be more appropriate to work with minimal penalties, as Minister Zanin did, considering the defendant’s attenuating,” he says.
Specialist in Criminal Procedural Law from USP, Maurício Zanoide also criticizes the reiteration of similar crimes and reinforces that the use of the Supreme Minister’s vote to endorse an unrestricted amnesty is undue. “This would be misinformation or bad faith,” he says.
