CRIME DE BAGATELA: desvende quando o réu pode ser ABSOLVIDO pelo Princípio da Insignificância

⚖️ FIRST STEPS IN LAW: the method for those who want to learn law in a simple and objective way (without pulling your hair out over boring classes or confusing books). 👉 REGISTER HERE: https://cintiabrunelli.com.br/direito 👩‍⚖️ Read the book INTRODUCTION TO THE WORLD OF LAW and learn, in one afternoon, what law students take 6 months to learn in college. 👉 BUY HERE: https://cintiabrunelli.com.br/intro 🏆 Subscribe to the NOVATOS DO DIREITO channel:    / @novatosdodireito   ❤️️ My Website: https://cintiabrunelli.com.br 💎 Telegram Group: https://t.me/cintiabrunelli 📷 Instagram:   / me.julga   📧 Email: [email protected] ===================================== If the conduct causes an injury that is negligible, it should not require the intervention of criminal law, and the consequence is that the defendant will be acquitted. The Supreme Federal Court (STF) established some parameters, which would be minimum requirements for applying the principle of insignificance. According to the STF, the offensiveness of the perpetrator's conduct, the social danger of the action, the degree of reprehensibility of the behavior, and the legal harm caused must be analyzed. Determining the harm must be based not only on the value of the stolen item, but also on the victim's financial situation, the circumstances, and the consequences of the crime. Thus, although the conduct is formally classified as a crime, the act itself will be atypical. It is important to remember that the concept of typicality in Criminal Law is subdivided into formal and material typicality. Formal typicality is simply the correspondence between a rule and the act. For example: what is theft? Article 155 of the Penal Code: stealing someone else's movable property for oneself or for another. Imagine that Zé das Couves walks into a large supermarket chain and pockets a white gold chocolate. Does the conduct formally qualify as theft? Yes, he stole someone else's movable property. But was there actually damage to the legal asset? Was the assets of that large supermarket chain threatened? No, it wasn't. So what we're saying is that this conduct wasn't materially typical. It's materially not typical because there was no threat of harm. I'm not saying it's OK to steal a candy bar from the supermarket; that's not it. But do you think it would make sense to convict Zé das Couves for stealing a candy bar? Okay, so what would be the solution to Zé das Couves's case? He was arrested in flagrante delicto for stealing a white gold candy bar. What now? Could the police chief himself recognize the principle of insignificance and close the police investigation? No. When there is an arrest in flagrante delicto and the application of the principle of insignificance is evident, the police chief can order the release of the arrested person and forward a statement to the Public Prosecutor's Office, to see if the prosecutor agrees and requests the judge to dismiss the case. The judge has the final say on the nature of the case, not the police chief or the prosecutor. Therefore, if the judge agrees, it is possible to dismiss the investigation so that it does not even become a criminal action. Now let's get into a controversial issue: What if the defendant is a repeat offender? Imagine the following: Zé das Couves stole a cell phone, was tried, convicted, served his sentence, and is now free. After completing his sentence, he entered a supermarket and stole two Minas cheeses. Is it possible to recognize insignificance? Or does the fact that he was previously convicted of stealing a cell phone preclude the application of the principle? The Supreme Court has already ruled on a case very similar to the one I described, in which the individual had indeed stolen two Minas cheeses, and the decision was an acquittal. The Supreme Court ruled that the key is to determine whether the crime committed was a minor crime, even if the defendant is a repeat offender. This is a highly controversial topic because many people understand that when we are faced with a repeat offense, the crime is not an isolated incident in a person's life, which creates greater reprehensibility of the behavior. Another important point is that the higher courts understand that the principle of insignificance can only be applied to property crimes if they are committed WITHOUT violence or serious threat to the person. If the crime of robbery is committed, which is when something is stolen through violence or serious threat, the principle of insignificance will not apply. There are other situations in which the courts have ruled that the principle of insignificance should not be applied: The crime of using counterfeit currency, because its primary legal interest is public trust. Electoral crimes: conduct that impacts the regularity of elections and voters' freedom of choice. It has also been understood ...