Volume 22 - Novembro de 2017 Editor: Walmor J. Piccinini - Fundador: Giovanni Torello |
Abril de 2016 - Vol.21 - Nº 4 Psiquiatria Forense
THE CRIMINAL EVALUATION IN THE BRAZILIAN PENITENTIARY SYSTEM: A CONTROVERSY Sandra Greenhalgh Summary: The concept of criminal evaluation (CE) was
first introduced in 1890, at the International Penitenciary Congress of St.
Petersburg. At that time it was demonstrated the need of an accurate
psychosocial biological evaluation of the felony, in case of returning to
society. Brazil only adopted this evaluation in 1924, when the benefit of
parole was cancelled (partial suspension of the freedom deprivation). The
evaluation aimed at examining the behavior (inside the prison), family living
capability, and social, psychological and psychiatric skills of the prisioner
requiring benefits, and progression of regime (move to a better jail, with more
freedom), requested by the Judge or the Public or Private Attorney. However,
such examination has been altered throughout the years and was finnally
abolished in 2003. Since 2003, however, this decision has been raising
controversial opinions among professionals involved in the criminal system. Resumo: A idéia do Exame Criminológico (EC) foi apresentada pela primeira vez em 1890, no Congresso Internacional Penitenciário de St. Petersburgo. Foi demonstrada a necessidade de uma avaliação biopsicosocial de um criminoso, caso este obtivesse a chance de um retorno à sociedade. O Brasil só adotou em 1924, quando inclusive teve revogado o benefício de livramento condicional (suspensão parcial da privação de liberdade).O exame tinha como objetivo avaliar o comportamento prisional, a capacidade sócio familiar, psicológica e psiquiátrica do prisioneiro, que pleiteava benefícios como o supracitado, ou o de progressão de regime (mudança da condição prisional), solicitados pelo Juiz, pela Defesa Pública ou Privada). Porém, o exame criminológico vem sofrendo modificações ao longo do tempo, sendo a última em 2003, quando foi legalmente abolido. Esta decisão vem provocando polêmicas opiniões em todos os envolvidos com o sistema penal. KeyWords: Criminal Evaluation, Brazilian
Criminal Code, Brazilian Penitentiary System, Parole, Psychiatry, Forensic
Psychiatry. Descritores: Exame Criminológico. Código Penal Brasileiro. Sistema Penitenciário Brasileiro. Livramento Introduction:
The jurists point out that the benefit of parole was introduced in the
first Criminal Code, (CC) of the Republic, by the Decree nº
From the Brazilian Penal Code regarding paroles: “Art. 83 - The judge will be able to grant parole to the felony who has been convicted to a sentence of freedom deprivation of or superior to 2 (two) years, as long as: I –He has fulfilled a third (1/3) of the sentence, has not relapsed (regarding any type of criminal activity), and has good records; II - He has fulfilled more than one
half of the sentence, even if being involved in criminal activity; III- An appropriate and satisfactory behavior during the sentence execution is evidentiated, or a good performance at the attributed job inside the prision or capacity to provide his own subsistence by an honest job outside the prision; IV – He is (was) able to repair,
except when it is impossible, the damage caused by his infraction. V - He has fulfilled more than two-thirds
(2/3) of the sentence, in the cases of conviction for hideous crime, torture,
illicit traffic of narcotics and similar drugs, and terrorism, if the felony
has not relapsed concerning such types of crimes.” Only paragraph: “For the convicted
for violent ot threatning felony, the concession of release will depend on the confirmation of the prisioner`s personal and
psychological conditions, indicating that the criminal, once set free, will not
commit any crimes again.” The above-mentioned phrase is marked
in boldface, so that the reader actually notices the fragility of the new Law,
because for the confirmation of such personal conditions, an entire exam,
evaluating social, psychological, psychiatric aspects is obviouslly necessary.
That is why a complete Criminal Evaluationg essencial. From the Criminal Process Code (CPC) regarding paroles: “Art. 712. The parole could be granted by petition from the sentenced him self, spouses, straight-line relatives, required by the director of the criminal establishment or by the Penitentiary Board.” “Art. 713. The conditions of
acceptability, convenience and concession oportunity of the release will be
verified by the Penitentiary Board, whose final decision, however, is not
related to the Judge’s.”
And still according to Criminal Execution Law (CEL): Art. 131. The
parole could be granted by an Execution Judge if: (1) all the requirements of
article 83 are presented, includind interpolated propositions and only
paragraph of the Criminal Code and (2) the Public Prosecution and Penitenciary
Board are both heard throughout the process. Art. 132 (LEP) – Once the order is
granted, the Judge will specify the conditions on which the release is submmitted
to: § 1º the prisioner granted with
parole will always be submitted to the following obligations: c) Not to move from the territory of the juristiction in which the parole sentence was executed without a previous authorization. § 2° other obligations might also be imposed: a) Not to move from the registrated residence without communicating the Judge and the parole officer b) Curfew at a settled time; c) Not to frequent certain places.”
After explaining some of the penal aspects of the Parole, we move now to
the scrutinization of the Criminal Evaluation itself. Before the controvorsial
alteration regarding its utility and scopes, the psychological evaluation was
under the Decree-Law nº 7210 of 11/07/1984 (Law of Criminal Execution) as
followed: Art.112 (LCE): “The sentence of freedom
deprivation will be executed progressively leading to a less rigorous regime (to
be determined by the Judge), when the prisoner have fulfilled at least 1/6 of
the sentence in the previous regime and present good behaviour, indicating
progression of the sentence.” Only paragraph - the decision will always be
motivated and confirmed by the Technical Classification Committe (TCC) and the
Criminal Evaluation, when necessary” Art.112 (LCE) - “The sentence of
freedom deprivation will be executed progressively leading to a less rigorous
regime (to be determined by the Judge), when the prisoner has fulfilled at
least 1/6 of the sentence in the previous regime and present good behaviour
(evidentiated by the director of the prision), indicationg progression of the
sentence.” “The sentence of freedom deprivation will be executed in gradual form with the transference for less rigorous regime, to be determined by the judge, when the prisoner will have fulfilled the least 1/6 of the penalty in the previous regime and to (evidentiated by the director of the prision), and the rules that forbid the progression are respected.” § 1o the decision always will be motivated and preceded by manifestation of the Public Prosecution Service and the Attorney (Defender). § 2o an identical procedure will be
adopted in the concession of parole, pardon and commutation of sentences,
respecting the deadlines and current laws. From this point beyond, the CE was
extinguished. “The (CE) used to be carried out by a Technical Classification Committee (TCC) also referred to in the LCE (article 7º): Art. 7º (LEC) - “the Technical Classification
Commtte in each establishment, will be presided by the director and composed
of, at least, 2 (two) head officers, 1 (one) psychiatrist, 1 (one) psychologist
and 1 (one) social assistant, when concerns a felony convicted to the sentence
of freedom deprivation”. Only paragraph: “In the remanescent
cases, the Committe will act with the Judgment of Execution and will be
integrated by inspectors of the social service.”
The (TCC) used to send the evaluation to the Jurisdiction of Criminal
Execution (JCE), along with: (1) collect guide (2) penitentiary records of the
convicted felony, (3) certification of prision behavior, (4) criminal records,
(5) certification of residence, (6) commitment of a job (when released). The
(JCE) than, in turn, sent it back to the Penitentiary Board for consideration.
It is important to remind that the Execution Judge resolution is not related to
the Penitentiary Board decision and cannot be decided without this last one.
The Penitentiary Board decision contributes to granting or not the benefit. In
case the Board is favorable but the Judge denies the parole, the Board decision
is crucial for an eventual appeal.
Concerning the Penitentiary Board, the LCE determined that: “Art. 69 (LCE) - “the Penitentiary
Board was a council organ whose functions were to supervise the execution of
sentences.” § 1º the Board was integrated by
members nominated by the State Governor, the Federal District and Territories,
including professors and professionals of the following areas: criminal law,
criminal procedure, penitentiary and correlated sciences, as well as community
leaders. The Federal and State legislation regulated its functioning.
I – emitting decisions about paroles, pardon and commutation of
sentences; II - inspecting criminal establishments and
penal services; III – presenting every 1º (first) trimesters of each year to the National Board of Criminal Politics and Prison, a complete report on everything done in the previous year; IV - supervising the patronages, as
well as the assistance to the egresses.
By the new Law nº 10.792, item I was substituted by: “I – emitting decision about pardons and
commutation of sentences, except when pardon is required based on the
prisioner`s health”
The Board than formulated a final synopsis and dispatched it again to
the JEC for a final conclusion of the Judge. When all requirements were
fulfilled, the prisioner was evaluated by the Technical Classification Committe,
composed by psychologists, psychiatrists and social assistants. In this
occasion, each professional elaborated a report separatively. Discussion
The Law nº10.792 of 1º /12/ 2003 modified the Law no
7.210, of 11/ 07/1984 - Law of Criminal Execution and the Decree-Law no
3.689, of 3 /10/1941 - Code of Criminal Process beyond other processes. It is
noticed that the Penitentiary Board, was not, at least clearly, abolished.
Obviously, after such a sudden resolution, a commotion was genetared in
different sectors of the criminal system. A controversial discussion than
begun, because some professionals defended the maintenance of the CE, while
others did not. At the same time, everyone was trying to interpretate the
specific role of the Penitentiary Board, in face of this recent resolution.
The State of Rio de Janeiro, represented by the Public Prosecution (PP),
was one of the first States fighting for the right of keeping the CE, obtaining
later a verbal agreement with the Supreme Court (SC) to maintain the use of CE
in the whole state. From than on, all the prisioners inside the penitentiary
system of Rio de Janeiro pleading for benefits; either changes in their
criminal regimes or parole requirements, continue being submitted to the
Criminal Evaluation.
Each professional interviews the prisoner one or two times in order to
elaborate a complete report. There are a great number of pre-conceived forms
that can be used by the professional, but in practice, they are almost never
used, maybe because they do not meet the specific demands of each area. On the
other hand, such practice may lead to partiality, since each professional tends
to make more convenient questions, according to their own professional areas,
establishing what is more relevent according to their personal concepts of evaluation.
This situation is getting worse as the number of professionals is reducing
while the population of prisoners increases. 1-What is the scope of the Criminal
Examination? To evaluate if the prisioner is ready for an
addequate return to the society, from a medical, psychological and social
perspective. Professionals of the TCC must also evaluate if the prisioners are
not requirering benefits in order to maintain themselves in criminality, once
they are out. Personality and mental illness might influence future actions, as
well as the lack of family bonds or a profession, lower degree of education, no
perspective of a real work, absence of regret, relapsing and others. It can be
said that is not under evaluation the individuals’ danger, but a set of hazard-related
circunstations. 2-Why abolish?
Maybe the professionals
responsible for the CE were not taking their attributions seriously, resulting
in successive delays in reports, harming the prisioners’ right for freedom, or
slowing down the flow of information which could define the existence of
certain rights for some prisioners. There a great number of bad quality
reports, incorrectly made by these professionals showing their inaptitude for
the job. It has been shown that most of times these reports would be the same
for all prisioners. Hence the CE professionals were not able to discuss about
the prisioners personal conditions based only on brief interviews. Sometimes,
these reports were not even done due to lack of human resources and material. Many
of the professionals presented obsolete and prejudiced trends. To think of some
probabilities, to support the unverifiable (without observing the
contradictory) would be unconstitutional attitudes. In addition, the absence of
this examination would accelerate criminal execution. C – Why Maintain? When elaborated by experts, it
provides precious information on the behavior and particular characteristics of
the prisoner, which are extemely useful when considering any kind of benefits.
Even if the Judge is not submmitted to the Board, or the grant of benefits
depends on a favorable decision, there are a great number of subsidies that can
be provided by the CE to the Judge so he can appropriatly decide on granting or
not benefits. The Criminal Evaluation used to be elaborated by professionals
who did not spend time with the prisioners. But it is insane to change the
reports done by professionals for those done by a penitentiary officer or the
director, because these individuals are not qualified to observe and understand
possible prisioner regeneration. Hence, many times their decisions are biased
by affinities, empathy or apathy for certain prisoners. According to some
experts, this new Law is not flawless; it brings more frustration than hope,
and is not able to change the institutions in order to introduce more efficient
codes destined to fight crime. To better qualify the professionals, improve
their techniques; to rigorously select the council members, demanding certain
indispensable titles, and to broaden the decision of the selecting these
professionals to other areas that are not only political are some of the simple
solutions for the improvement of the CE, in order to simple abolish it. It
would be better to correct these errors than just not carrying out the
evaluation. It would be more adequate if the legislator establishes a standard
scale of behavior measurement, objecting the evaluation of prisional behavior,
and therefore providing a more secure decision from a penal point of view;
afterall “good prisional behavior” was not defined by the Law. Conclusion
The Criminal Examination aimed at observing the personality, social
behavior, records and prision behavior of the convicted. It used to be, carried
out by a group of qualifyied multidisciplinary professionals, such as
psychologists, social assistants and psychiatrists. This group was called
Technical Classification Committe (TCC). The Law 10.792/03 rewrote articles 6º
and 112º of the Criminal Execution Law (CEL), discharging the Committee`s decision
and the Criminal Evaluation for regime progressions and regressions,
conversions of sentences, parole, pardons and commuttation. The change, though, did not apply in
the case of granting parole to the convicted for felony committed with violence
or serious threat the victim. This is related to the rule of the only paragraph
of article 83 from the Criminal Code, where concession is submitted to a
confirmation of personal psychological conditions assuming that the realeased
individual will not commit any more crimes. This confirmation would still
depend on the Criminal Evaluation. From a psychiatric point of view,
where do we psychiatrists stand now? Does the convicted for felony that wants
(and can) to spend the rest of his sentence out of the prision institution must
go through a multidisciplinary examination? If yes, how could it be done? Our
study aimed at raising some questions and trying to answer some of them, after
all, this is the real contribution of forensic psychiaty to justice. References ESPÍNOLA Filho, Eduardo. Brazilian code of criminal
procedure, 4a edition, Borsoi Publisher, Rio de Janeiro, 1956, Notation nº
1485, P. 198, Criminal Law Review, vol. 16, pp. 87-94. FERRAZ Jr, Tercio Sampaio. “Antinomy, Encyclopedia Saraiva of Law”, pg.
14 DINIZ, Maria Helena. “Conflict of Norms”, 2ª ed., Ed. Saraiva, São Paulo, 1996, pg. 13 MAXIMILIANO, Carlos. “Hermeneutics and Law Application”, 7ª ed., São Paulo, 1961, pg. 172-173 MIRABETE, Júlio Fabbrini. “Criminal execution”, 6ª ed., Ed. Atlases, São Paulo, 1996,pg. 194 ROSE, Antonio Jose Miguel Feu. “Criminal execution”, Ed. RT, São Paulo, 1995,
pg.190 WALNUT, Pablo Lúcio. “Commentaries on Criminal Execution Law”, Ed.
Saraiva, 1990, pg.156 BALDIN, Antonio. “The LEP Reform did not abolish
Criminal Evaluation”, ISOLDI SON, Carlos Alberto de Silveira. “Criminal Evaluation, TCC deadlines and the New Law nº 10,792/03, De SOUZA, Guillermo. “First Considerations on the Law Nº
10,792/03”, SBARDELOTTO, Fábio Roque. “Preliminary Considerations
Regarding the Alterations in Criminal Execution Law nº 10,792/03”, SILVA, César Dario Mariano. “Progression of Criminal Regime and
Parole concerning the changes on the Law 10,763, of 12/11/2003, and Law nº 10,792, of 1º/12/ AMBROGI,
Marcos Alexandre Santos.
“Progression of Regime, Law nº 10.792/03. Dismissal of the Technical Classification
Committed”. Constitutionality, in IBCCrim Bulletin nº 135, feb./2004, pg. 771. AZEVEDO,
Cleuza M. Silveira de. “Reflections on the Alteration of
the LEP Regarding the Law 10,792/03”, FURUKAWA, Nagashi. “The end of the
criminal evaluation”. In: The State of São Paulo, Espaço Aberto, pg.A2,
10.may.2004 REALE JÚNIOR, Miguel. “Attempt on Eliminating the Danger
Criterion”, in IBC Crim. Bulletin nº 140, Special Edition, jully/2004, pg. 02
and 03. COAST, Alvaro Mayrink de. “Criminal Law.” Rio de Janeiro: Forensic, v.
II, 6ª ed., 1998 LOPES JUNIOR, Aury. “The legal employ of technical
findings in criminal execution”. São Paulo: Brazilian institute of Criminal
Sciences, Bulletin nº 123, feb. 2003. Não há conflito de interesses dos autores em relação. Este trabalho nao foi financiado por agências de fomento de pesquisas. 1 Forensic Psychiatrist, MD, MSc - Institute of Psychiatry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Av. Afranio de Melo Franco 149/405 - Leblon - Cep: 22430-060 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ – Brasil Tel: (55) (21) 9647-6695 - Email: [email protected] 2 Forensic Psychiatrist, MD, MSc, PhD - Institute of Psychiatry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. R. Francisco Sá 23/605 - Copacabana - Cep: 22080-010 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brasil – Tel: (55) (21) 2523-0390 – Email: [email protected]
|