A (não) obrigatoriedade do Procedimento Administrativo Disciplinar para o reconhecimento de falta grave no âmbito da Execução Penal
Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Data
2023-12
Tipo de documento
Monografia
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Área do conhecimento
Modalidade de acesso
Acesso aberto
Editora
Autores
MEDEIROS, Julia Gonçalves
Orientador
BENTO, Agenor de Lima
Coorientador
LEONEL, Vilson
Resumo
O presente trabalho de conclusão de curso tem como objetivo discutir à imprescindibilidade de prévia instauração de procedimento administrativo disciplinar ante o cometimento de falta grave pelo apenado, para garantia da ampla defesa a partir da Lei de Execução Penal nº 7.210/1984. Além disso, visa descrever a importância da instauração do Procedimento Administrativo Disciplinar e o estrito cumprimento do devido processo legal, incluindo, demonstrar divergências de entendimentos produzidos pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal e Superior Tribunal de Justiça em referência à lei 7.210/84 de Execução Penal, bem como, identificar a obrigatoriedade da instauração do Procedimento Administrativo Disciplinar, mesmo com a realização da audiência de justificação pelo Juízo da Execução Penal, realizando uma ampla comparação de requisitos formulados pelas decisões dos tribunais superiores, e ainda, se garantem a ampla defesa do condenado. Trata-se de trabalho com abordagem de estudo qualitativa e, quanto ao nível de aprofundamento, refere-se à pesquisa exploratória. Quanto aos instrumentos e procedimentos de coleta de dados, trata-se de uma pesquisa de natureza essencialmente bibliográfica e documental que versam sobre o tema. De acordo com este estudo, conclui-se que a ampla defesa é fundamental para garantia e existência do devido processo legal, restando ser indispensável a existência do procedimento administrativo disciplinar em sede de Execução Penal, uma vez que existe a necessidade e a obrigatoriedade da instauração desse procedimento para o reconhecimento da falta disciplinar, conforme expresso no artigo 59, caput, do referido diploma legal. Concluindo-se, ainda, que há conflitos de entendimentos dos tribunais superiores, uma vez que entende o Superior Tribunal Federal que a apuração da falta grave em procedimento judicial, observando as garantias de direito ao condenado, perante o Juízo da Execução Penal, torna desnecessário o prévio procedimento administrativo, pois estaria garantindo os princípios do contraditório e ampla defesa do condenado, entendendo ainda, ser o caso do princípio da eficiência (art. 37, da Constituição Federal). Assim, surge a necessidade de descrever a importância e identificar a obrigatoriedade, da instauração do PAD em garantia a ampla defesa e ao estrito cumprimento do processo legal, mesmo com a realização da audiência de justificação pelo Juízo da Execução Penal.
This brief addresses the necessity of administrative disciplinary proceedings against the convict due to serious misconduct, consistent with Penal Execution Law No. 7,210/1984, which guarantees a complete defense. Furthermore, it describes the importance of establishing the Disciplinary Administrative Procedure and strict compliance with due process, including demonstrating divergence in understandings produced by the Federal Supreme Court and Superior Court of Justice in reference to law 7.210/89 on Criminal Execution. Additionally, it identifies the obligation to initiate the Disciplinary Administrative Procedure, even with the justification hearing carried out by the Criminal Execution Court, carrying out a broad comparison of requirements formulated by the decisions of the higher courts, and guaranteeing the full defense of the convicted person. This is work with a qualitative study approach and refers to exploratory research. As for data collection instruments and procedures, this is essentially bibliographic and documentary research on the topic. According to this study, a broad defense is fundamental to satisfy existing due process guarantees, with disciplinary administrative procedures (in the context of Criminal Execution) being indispensable. This is because there is a strong need for the establishment of this procedure to recognize disciplinary misconduct, as expressed in article 59, caput, of the legal diploma. In conclusion, there is a conflict of understanding between the higher courts, since the Federal Superior Court holds that the investigation of serious misconduct in judicial proceedings, observing the guarantees of the right to the convicted person, before the Criminal Execution Court, makes unnecessary the previous administrative procedure, as it would be guaranteeing the principles of adversarial proceedings and full defense of the convicted person, also understanding that this is the case with the principle of efficiency (art. 37, of the Federal Constitution). Thus, there is a need to describe the importance and identify the obligation of establishing the PAD to guarantee full defense and strict compliance with the legal process, even with the justification hearing held by the Criminal Execution Court.
This brief addresses the necessity of administrative disciplinary proceedings against the convict due to serious misconduct, consistent with Penal Execution Law No. 7,210/1984, which guarantees a complete defense. Furthermore, it describes the importance of establishing the Disciplinary Administrative Procedure and strict compliance with due process, including demonstrating divergence in understandings produced by the Federal Supreme Court and Superior Court of Justice in reference to law 7.210/89 on Criminal Execution. Additionally, it identifies the obligation to initiate the Disciplinary Administrative Procedure, even with the justification hearing carried out by the Criminal Execution Court, carrying out a broad comparison of requirements formulated by the decisions of the higher courts, and guaranteeing the full defense of the convicted person. This is work with a qualitative study approach and refers to exploratory research. As for data collection instruments and procedures, this is essentially bibliographic and documentary research on the topic. According to this study, a broad defense is fundamental to satisfy existing due process guarantees, with disciplinary administrative procedures (in the context of Criminal Execution) being indispensable. This is because there is a strong need for the establishment of this procedure to recognize disciplinary misconduct, as expressed in article 59, caput, of the legal diploma. In conclusion, there is a conflict of understanding between the higher courts, since the Federal Superior Court holds that the investigation of serious misconduct in judicial proceedings, observing the guarantees of the right to the convicted person, before the Criminal Execution Court, makes unnecessary the previous administrative procedure, as it would be guaranteeing the principles of adversarial proceedings and full defense of the convicted person, also understanding that this is the case with the principle of efficiency (art. 37, of the Federal Constitution). Thus, there is a need to describe the importance and identify the obligation of establishing the PAD to guarantee full defense and strict compliance with the legal process, even with the justification hearing held by the Criminal Execution Court.
Palavras-chave
Procedimento Administrativo Disciplinar, PAD, Ampla defesa