Análise da (in) constitucionalidade do porte ilegal compartilhado de arma de fogo
Carregando...
Arquivos
Data
2021
Tipo de documento
Monografia
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Área do conhecimento
Ciências Sociais Aplicadas
Modalidade de acesso
Acesso fechado
Editora
Autores
Carvalho, Mariane Espindula de
Orientador
Faria, Denise Silva de Amorim
Coorientador
Resumo
OBJETIVO: O presente trabalho monográfico tem como objetivo analisar a (in) constitucionalidade do porte ilegal compartilhado de arma de fogo, verificando se a posição favorável ao porte compartilhado de arma de fogo estaria ferindo os princípios constitucionais e infraconstitucionais, tais como o princípio da responsabilidade penal subjetiva, princípio da legalidade em sentido estrito, como, também, a analogia in malam partem. MÉTODO: Utilizou-se para a coleta de dados a consulta bibliográfica e documental, através de pesquisa em doutrina, legislação, jurisprudência e artigos científicos. No que tange à abordagem, trata-se de pesquisa qualitativa, utilizando-se do método dedutivo e quanto ao nível trata-se de uma pesquisa exploratória. RESULTADOS: Foi constatado que as decisões que admitem o porte compartilhado consideram o crime de porte de arma de fogo um crime unissubjetivo e por esse motivo admitiria a coautoria, sendo apenas necessária a comprovação que todos os indivíduos tinham acesso e disponibilidade sobre a arma de fogo. No entanto, o entendimento majoritário da doutrina, o crime de porte de arma de fogo é um crime de mão própria, sendo, portanto, um crime no qual o sujeito não pode se valer de outra pessoa para praticá-lo. Assim compreende-se que o porte na modalidade compartilhada é inconstitucional, havendo a possibilidade no porte compartilhado apenas em uma situação, qual seja, quando ambos os indivíduos estivessem segurando o objeto ao mesmo tempo. CONCLUSÃO: Desse modo, conclui-se pela inconstitucionalidade do porte compartilhado de arma de fogo, visto que fere os princípios constitucionais e infraconstitucionais. Pois, conforme o entendimento majoritário da doutrina o crime de porte é um crime de mão própria, que não admite a coautoria.
OBJECTIVE: This monographic work aims to analyze the (un)constitutionality of illegal shared possession of firearms, verifying whether the position in favor of shared possession of firearms would violate constitutional and infra-constitutional principles, such as the principle of responsibility subjective penal, principle of legality in the strict sense, as well as the analogy in malam partem. METHOD: For data collection, bibliographical and documental consultation was used, through research in doctrine, legislation, jurisprudence and scientific articles. Regarding the approach, it is a qualitative research, using the deductive method and regarding the level, it is an exploratory research. RESULTS: It was found that the decisions that admit shared possession consider the crime of carrying a firearm as a unisubjective crime and for this reason would admit co-authorship, being only necessary to prove that all individuals had access and availability about the firearm . However, the majority understanding of the doctrine, the crime of carrying a firearm is a crime of one's own hand, being, therefore, a crime in which the subject cannot use another person to practice it. Thus, it is understood that the possession in the shared modality is unconstitutional, with the possibility of the shared possession only in one situation, that is, when both individuals were holding the object at the same time. CONCLUSION: Thus, it is concluded that the shared possession of firearms is unconstitutional, as it violates constitutional and infra-constitutional principles. Because, according to the majority understanding of the doctrine, the crime of possession is a crime of one's own hand, which does not admit co-authorship.
OBJECTIVE: This monographic work aims to analyze the (un)constitutionality of illegal shared possession of firearms, verifying whether the position in favor of shared possession of firearms would violate constitutional and infra-constitutional principles, such as the principle of responsibility subjective penal, principle of legality in the strict sense, as well as the analogy in malam partem. METHOD: For data collection, bibliographical and documental consultation was used, through research in doctrine, legislation, jurisprudence and scientific articles. Regarding the approach, it is a qualitative research, using the deductive method and regarding the level, it is an exploratory research. RESULTS: It was found that the decisions that admit shared possession consider the crime of carrying a firearm as a unisubjective crime and for this reason would admit co-authorship, being only necessary to prove that all individuals had access and availability about the firearm . However, the majority understanding of the doctrine, the crime of carrying a firearm is a crime of one's own hand, being, therefore, a crime in which the subject cannot use another person to practice it. Thus, it is understood that the possession in the shared modality is unconstitutional, with the possibility of the shared possession only in one situation, that is, when both individuals were holding the object at the same time. CONCLUSION: Thus, it is concluded that the shared possession of firearms is unconstitutional, as it violates constitutional and infra-constitutional principles. Because, according to the majority understanding of the doctrine, the crime of possession is a crime of one's own hand, which does not admit co-authorship.
Palavras-chave
Arma de fogo, Compartilhada, Porte