O trabalho prisional e a remição da pena: uma análise a possibilidade jurídica da remição ficta da pena diante da omissão estatal na oferta de trabalho

Abstract

This research sought to demonstrate the relationship between prison labor and sentence remission, legal instruments provided for in the Penal Enforcement Act (LEP). Prison labor is one of the main pillars in the execution of a custodial sentence, and its exercise is a social duty and a condition of human dignity, in addition to having an educational and productive purpose. Furthermore, the effective exercise of labor within the prison environment can mitigate the length of the sentence of prisoners, through the benefit of sentence remission. However, the lack of job opportunities for inmates by the State, which is responsible for their custody and also guarantees their rights, has been a challenge in the contemporary prison reality. In this sense, discussions have begun about the possibility of granting fictitious remission of sentence without the provision of effective work, due to the State's failure to provide it. Since work is a right-duty guaranteed to inmates, it is the State's obligation to comply with the job offer. The general objective of this research is to address the possibility of granting the institute of remission in a fictitious form to individuals deprived of liberty. It is guided by the following specific objectives: to present the importance that prison work has in custodial sentences and the responsibility of the State in achieving work for detainees; to demonstrate the relationship of prison work in the remission of the sentence; to expose the discussions in the doctrine and in the jurisprudence around the application of the application of fictitious remission in the case of lack of work. The methodology used for this research was the bibliographic review supported by books, articles and normative provisions in the legal system. In addition to the favorable and unfavorable doctrinal understandings surrounding the issue of fictitious remission without the exercise of effective labor and the jurisprudential position of the Supreme Federal Court, regarding fictitious remission, up to the most recent judgment in the Argument of Non-Compliance with Fundamental Precept 347. Coming to the conclusion that the recognition for granting fictitious remission of the sentence due to state omission has as its main obstacle the lack of express legal provision that authorizes its implementation, therefore, it is necessary to issue a normative instrument for its regulation, and the remission of the sentence must be a compensatory instrument for the lack of labor supply by the State.