. A legislative change that results in a penalty reduction is still viable, but it would not prevent the former president from starting to comply with his sentence in a closed regime.
The least tortuous path to relieving the situation of the retired captain would be the benefit of house arrest because of the health problems he developed.
Should we be aware of the sanitary argument? I ask you to quote Jair Bolsonaro:
This is just one of many statements in which he belittled health issues and deaths throughout the pandemic. Thus, in respect of the former president’s “Weltanschauung”, we would need to conclude that the possibility of death in jail is not enough reason to ward off rigorous compliance with the law.
But I’m not as cruel as Bolsonaro. I think the state needs to ensure the health conditions of all those who are under their custody, including the former president. And the problem is that the Brazilian state does not do that.
of sufficiently sick prisoners to be entitled to a home as they still became poles of transmission of infectious diseases. Many people who get healthy in the system soon contract tuberculosis, syphilis, HIV and hepatitis, to name only a few of the most prevalent diseases.
This puts the STF in a dilemma. The court could not ignore Bolsonaro health risks, but could not give the message that Brazilian courts have favorites.
Granting to the former president a benefit that does not extend to other inmates in the same or even worse would be a blow against the republican ideal by which the court needs to ensure. The correct solution here would be to universalize the benefits granted to prisoners who are sick. Hard to happen.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
