The Chamber’s Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ) is expected to analyze on Tuesday the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (PEC) that reduces the age of criminal responsibility from 18 to 16 years old, an issue that the opposition intends to use to pressure the government in the area of public security.
The text establishes that “majority is reached at sixteen years of age, the age from which the person is considered criminally imputable and capable of fully exercising all acts of civil life.” The admissibility of the PEC has already received the rapporteur’s favorable opinion.
— I will discuss it next week — said the president of the CCJ, deputy Leur Lomanto Júnior (União-BA).
The theme has been used by senator Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ), pre-candidate for President. The parliamentarian took a position in favor of reducing the age of criminal responsibility and linked the issue directly to his pre-campaign.
“This type of measure can be approved when the President of the Republic uses his prestige with the National Congress. I will do so! Tolerance for criminals who use their chronological age to commit barbaric crimes is over!”, he said on social media last month.
In the discussion of the age of criminal responsibility, PT deputies have positioned themselves against it and tried to prevent approval by the CCJ. In a public hearing at the CCJ when the topic was being discussed, deputy Patrus Ananias (PT-MG) stated that the reduction will result in young people being recruited earlier by organized crime.
Continues after advertising
— And in a while we will be discussing reducing the age of majority to 14 years, to 12 years — criticized the deputy.
On the other hand, the Minister of Justice and Public Security, Wellington César Lima e Silva, said in an interview with GLOBO that he was in favor of debating the topic.
—Historically, I was against reducing the age of criminal responsibility (…) I think that every normative agenda that holds individuals responsible for committing serious acts may deserve a reexamination, with regard to its emphases, characteristics and graduation. Are you for or against? It’s not that. I think that we cannot treat people with different degrees of maturity in exactly the same way, but I also understand that society and Parliament have the right to debate the specific characteristics of this degree.
