Os impactos democráticos da recepção do direito penal do inimigo no Supremo Tribunal Federal

Abstract

The dissertation investigates the democratic impact of applying the theory of Enemy Criminal Law. The research examines how this theory, which categorizes certain individuals as enemies due to the dangerousness of their actions, is addressed by the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) in its decisions on constitutional review and Habeas Corpus. Quantitatively, we will analyze a sample consisting of 40 Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality, 14 Allegations of Violation of a Fundamental Precept, 6 Declaratory Actions of Constitutionality, and 1 Direct Action of Unconstitutionality by Omission. This corpus was selected using the STF’s jurisprudence search tool, employing the operator "Criminal Law," thereby narrowing the focus to judgments within the area of Criminal Law. This dataset includes all relevant judgments from 1990 to 2021, totaling 61 decisions. Qualitatively, we will analyze 73 Habeas Corpus cases from the same period, 1990 to 2021, to maintain the temporal integrity of the research analysis. The Habeas Corpus cases were also selected using the STF’s jurisprudence search tool, employing the operators "Criminal Law" and "Public Order." Based on this analysis, the study questions to what extent the STF adopts assumptions of Enemy Criminal Law in its decisions and how this perspective affects democracy and fundamental rights. The dissertation offers a critical reflection on the necessity for the STF to reject this doctrine, emphasizing that the Court must act as a guardian of the Constitution, protecting fundamental rights and ensuring that Criminal Law remains focused on the citizen, rather than the enemy.