O presente trabalho tem como objetivo a análise da validade das normas infraconstitucionais que possibilitam ao julgador penal a decretação da prisão preventiva sem o requerimento do Ministério Público ou do querelante. O maior ou menor grau de atribuições de ofício ao juiz está diretamente ligado ao sistema processual penal vigente em cada jurisdição. Desta forma, importa definir os sistemas processuais penais acusatório, inquisitório e misto, os princípios que os regem, e identificar qual deles foi o escolhido pela Constituição Federal de 1988 e pelas normas supralegais. A partir da conclusão de que a Constituição Federal institui o princípio acusatório que condiciona todas as normas infraconstitucionais, identificamos as normas que não encontram sua fundamentação neste princípio e, por isso, destoam do sistema. A norma que dá ao juiz o poder de decretar de ofício a prisão preventiva é uma delas. O trabalho, então, analisa criticamente alguns dos argumentos que comumente são utilizados para fundamentar a posição da constitucionalidade ou inconstitucionalidade da norma, concluindo que as bases que sustentam o poder de ofício do juiz é o ideal inquisitório de um sistema de justiça que implementa políticas públicas em que a imparcialidade do juiz é um atributo de somenos importância. Por fim, colacionam-se algumas notas de direito comparado a respeito de como a questão é tratada em diferentes jurisdições. O trabalho conclui que o poder de decretar a prisão preventiva de ofício está em contradição com os valores processuais acusatórios típicos dos Estados Democráticos de Direito. Indica-se uma possível solução para a modernização do método de tomada de decisão de medidas cautelares consistente nas audiências prévias que oferecem um ambiente mais propício ao exercício das garantias processuais. / This study aims to analyze the validity of the infra-constitutional norms that allow the criminal judge to issue a remand without the request of the prosecutor or the plaintiff. The greater or lesser degree of power assigned to the judge is directly connected to the current actual justice system in each jurisdiction. Thus, it is relevant to define the criminal procedural systems accusatorial, inquisitorial and mixed, their governing principles, and identify which one was chosen by the Federal Constitution of 1988 and the rules that are higher in hierarchy. From the assumption that the Brazilian Constitution establishes the adversarial principle which determines norms in our law systems, the study identifies rules that do not find their justification in this principle and, therefore, diverge from the system. The rule that gives the judge the power to issue a preventive detention order is one of them. The work then critically examines some of the arguments that are commonly used to support the position of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of this rule, concluding that the basis supporting the judge\'s power is the inquisitorial ideal of a policy implementing justice system in which the judge\'s impartiality is a minor attribute. Finally, some notes of comparative law are collected in regard to how the issue is assessed in different jurisdictions. The paper concludes that the power to issue the order is contrary to the typical values of the accusatory procedural law of Democratic States. At the end, the study indicates a possible solution to the modernization of the decision-making method for precautionary measures consistent in previous hearings that offer an environment more conducive to the exercise of procedural safeguards.

Protective therapy and preventive detention Abstract The aim of the diploma thesis is to provide a comprehensive description of protective measures with an emphasis on two specific protective measures, namely protective treatment and security detention. These are criminal sanctions that are the result not only of a criminal offense, but also of an otherwise criminal offense. The basic function of these measures is not only to protect society from dangerous persons who have committed harmful acts on the basis of their mental disorder, sexual deviance or dependence on alcohol or other addictive substances, but also therapeutic effect on the personalities of these offenders so that their danger to society as minimized as possible and allowed them to return to normal life. The introductory chapters contain the basic characteristics of protective measures, their comparison with penalties and a brief description of the remaining protective measures, ie the institute will prevent things, prevent part of the property and protective education. The following chapter deals with the basic concepts that are closely related to both institutes, and whose understanding is crucial for grasping the whole issue. In the following chapters, I then deal in detail with the individual aspects of protective treatment and security...

The institute of preventive detention is a new protective measure in our penal law. The theme of this thesis is an analysis of the comission and goals of the new protective measure and focusing on a comparation of theoretical and practical function of this protective measure. The folowing chapters provide the characterization of the preventive detention and its legal framework in the Czech republic. The component part of the thesis is also a description of the preventive detention in a legal framework of other state, concretely Slovakia. At the end of the work there are explicated knowledges obtained during the visit of the Institute for preventive detention Brno. In this chapter not only functional equipment is described but also the compositon of the inmates and employees and their most important competencies. Programms, by which are the medical goals fullfiled are described at the end of the thesis.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:21:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Cassiano Mazon.pdf: 996276 bytes, checksum: 7633766463328c88c8d77f4fd75d295d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-09-19 / This thesis is a study on the issue of the grounds of court decisions and preventive detention orders, in light of both domestic and foreign legislation and books of authority, including Brazilian case law. The criminal procedure, an enforceable constitutional right, is a fundamental guarantee under a democratic rule of law system, the central pillar of which is human dignity. Under the rule of law, all court decisions must be duly grounded, notably in the case of the need to restrict fundamental rights, such as an individual s freedom, through a preventive detention order. The grounds arising from the due process of law consist in providing all details of the legal and factual basis which led the court to render such decision. The grounds given by the court must be just, dialectic, coherent and rational, as mere references to legal provisions, allusion to vague and generic formulae, which may be adjusted to any circumstance, are not sufficient. Considering the principle of presumption of innocence, it has been established that preventive detention, a provisional remedy par excellence, is marked by its provisional character in that it should remain effective for the same time the urgent situation that justified it lasts - thus qualifying as an exceptional measure - hence, applicable to emergency situations, if and when all other provisional remedies prove to be improper and insufficient. This study has shown that preventive detention may be ordered in view of the presence of certain legal assumptions and requirements, therefore its grounds requires from the court a careful examination of the circumstances and particularities of the case in question, in light of the principle of proportionality. The conclusion is that unjust and defective grounds give rise to the acknowledgement of the nullity thereof as the essential values provided in the Constitution may be harmed and thus adversely affect human dignity / A presente dissertação abordou o tema da fundamentação das decisões judiciais e a prisão preventiva, mediante análise da legislação e da doutrina, nacionais e estrangeiras, bem como da jurisprudência pátria. O processo penal, direito constitucional aplicado, é uma garantia fundamental no Estado Democrático de Direito, cujo pilar central é a dignidade humana. No Estado Democrático de Direito, devem ser motivadas todas as decisões judiciais, máxime diante da necessidade de restrição a direitos fundamentais, no caso a liberdade, mediante a decretação da prisão preventiva. A fundamentação, decorrente do princípio do devido processo legal, consiste na explicitação das razões de fato e de direito que conduziram o magistrado à decisão. O discurso justificativo judicial deve mostrar-se íntegro, dialético, coerente e racional, não sendo suficientes meras referências a dispositivos legais, com alusão a fórmulas vagas e genéricas, ajustáveis a toda e qualquer situação. Considerando o princípio da presunção de inocência, consignou-se que a prisão preventiva, cautelar por excelência, é marcada pela provisoriedade, devendo vigorar enquanto perdurar a situação de urgência que justificou a decretação da medida, constituindo providência excepcional, porquanto aplicável às hipóteses emergenciais, se e quando todas as demais medidas cautelares mostrarem-se inadequadas e insuficientes. O estudo demonstrou que a prisão preventiva só poderá ser decretada em face da presença de determinados pressupostos e requisitos legais, razão pela qual sua motivação demandará, por parte do magistrado, análise das circunstâncias e peculiaridades do caso concreto, à luz do princípio da proporcionalidade. Ao final, restou assente que a fundamentação inidônea, dotada de vícios, enseja reconhecimento de sua nulidade, por comprometer valores essenciais consagrados no Texto Constitucional, atingindo a própria dignidade da pessoa humana

« Le juge des libertés et de la détention ». A l’oxymore de son appellation répond l’ambivalence de l’institution dans le procès pénal. Créé par la loi du 15 juin 2000 renforçant la protection de la présomption d’innocence et les droits des victimes, le magistrat s’impose, à l’origine, comme le compromis attendu entre la nécessité d’un nouveau contrôle de la détention provisoire et l’attachement français à l’institution du juge d’instruction. Investi d’un rôle central en la matière, le juge judiciaire a également vocation à intervenir dans le cadre de mesures diverses, que son contrôle irrigue les enquêtes pénales ou qu’il s’étende à d’autres contentieux, comme en matière de privation de liberté des étrangers, de visites et saisies administratives ou encore de l’hospitalisation sans consentement. La succession de modifications sporadiques de ses pouvoirs confirme sa fonction malléable, au service d’une quête pérenne : la protection des libertés, l’équilibre de l’avant-procès. Au rythme des louvoiements du législateur, le magistrat peine, pourtant, à s’identifier dans le processus pénal : hier au service des libertés, aujourd’hui de la coercition. Alors que l’institution semble poser les sédiments d’une nouvelle perception de la phase préparatoire du procès, l’évolution de son rôle préfigure d’autres mutations : de la justice pénale, des acteurs judiciaires, l’esquisse, enfin, d’une équation processuelle singulière. La présente recherche propose ainsi de situer ce magistrat au coeur de ces évolutions, comme la trame embryonnaire d'un "renouveau" de la phase préparatoire du procès. / « The Judge for freedom and detention » [Le juge des libertés et de la détention]. The oxymoron of its name reflects the ambivalence of this institution in criminal matters. Founded by the June 15, 2000 statute which reinforces the protection of presumption of innocence as well as the victims’ rights, this magistrate originally imposed itself as the expected compromise between the necessity of a new control over custody and ties of the French to the institution of the investigating judge [juge d‟instruction]. Empowered with a central role in this matter, the judiciary judge must also intervene when various measures are considered, both during criminal investigations and other types of litigations, such as those depriving foreigners of their freedom, administrative search and seizures or hospitalization without consent. The succession of the sporadic modifications of its powers only confirms the flexible nature of its function to serve a never ending quest: the protection of civil liberties and the balance of the pre-trial. As the legislator hedges, the institution struggles to find its place within the criminal process. Yesterday dedicated to civil liberties, today to coercion. Whilst the institution seems to set the basis for a new perception of the pre-trial phase, the evolution of its role announces further transformations: to criminal justice, to the judiciary actors and finally, the preparation of a singular equation in the litigation process. The present paper offers to locate this magistrate within these evolutions as the embryonic plot of a “new era” in the pre-trial phase.