Análise dos processos de réus presos na cadeia pública de Bom Conselho-PE à luz dos princípios da celeridade processual e da eficiência no período de 2016 a 2020

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze whether the criminal processes of defendants temporarily incarcerated in the public jail of Bom Conselho-PE have availed themselves of the principles of celerity and procedural efficiency, in the period between 2016 and 2020. The research has a mixed approach: qualitative and quantitative, of descriptive-exploratory nature. The qualitative research occurred through coding based on previously established categories of analysis, from the theoretical framework developed, allowing an interpretation of which processes of defendants in provisional custody have availed themselves of the principles of celerity and procedural efficiency. This step is fundamental for the structuring of the temporal clippings developed in the next step. The quantitative research corresponded to the data survey and analysis of the procedural situation of the provisionally arrested defendants. This is a longitudinal study, whose research questions and hypotheses were affected by the variation of things over time. Additionally, two (2) groups of recommendations were included in this study: one objective (short term) and one complex (long term). The first includes the proposal for the creation of a tool linked to the Electronic Judicial Process (PJe), capable of issuing an alert to control the procedural deadlines for imprisoned defendants. The second concerns the inclusion through adoption of a legal system already used by Comparative Law, which is the "plea bargaining", that is, the defendant who pleads guilty has, almost immediately, the sanction applied. The results obtained showed that the time of imprisonment and the processes developed in the City Court of Bom Conselho-PE are far from applying the principles of celerity and procedural efficiency, since there is not enough data to point out all the problems faced by the Judiciary in the development of criminal processes. Despite all the effort employed by the CNJ in collecting statistical data, the work of the Judiciary is bureaucratic and little progress is made in adopting consensual means of resolving justice. The organizational model of the Judiciary is inefficient and the changes already introduced have not been able to reverse the slow pace of justice. The greatest difficulties faced by the judiciary reside in the high cost of maintaining its activities, since there is a deficiency in the number of public servants and a lack of productivity indicators. The absence of data hinders the establishment of new measures that can lead the judiciary to be able to apply in practice the principles of procedural speed and efficiency.