10 YEARS OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE BRAZILIAN PRISON SYSTEM: ADVANCES, SETBACKS AND PERSPECTIVES IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION IN ADPF 347
ADPF 347; Unconstitutional State of Affairs; structural processes; penal execution; custody hearings; Anti-Crime Package; Temporary Release Law; Just Sentence Plan.
This research analyzes the role and capacity of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) in the difficult task of inducing public policies and coordinating structural responses to address serious violations of the fundamental rights of prisoners, ten years after the recognition of the Unconstitutional State of Affairs (ECI) of the Brazilian prison system (ADPF 347). The dissertation reconstructs the procedural itinerary (initial petition, precautionary measure, incidents, merits, and approval of the Just Sentence Plan), revisits the theoretical bases of public policies, structural processes, and the ECI institute, presenting, through relevant empirical evidence, reflections on political deliberations with potential impact on the unconstitutional state of affairs in the Brazilian penitentiary system. Methodologically, it articulates legal-dogmatic analysis with the reading of historical series and public governance documents (CNJ, SENAPPEN, MJSP), emphasizing the principle of human dignity, the prohibition of insufficient protection, and the logic of gradual remedies with judicial supervision. Regarding advancements, noteworthy achievements include the nationwide implementation of custody hearings (presentation within 24 hours), normative standardization by the CNJ (National Council of Justice), the release of FUNPEN (National Penitentiary Fund) resources, and the strengthening of negotiation instruments such as the Non-Prosecution Agreement, with the potential to reduce unnecessary entries and improve legality and proportionality filters. Institutionally, the approval of the Just Penalty Plan inaugurates a governance design oriented towards goals, indicators, and active transparency, including monitoring by regime and federative coordination. Among the setbacks, the dissertation analyzes Law 13.964/2019 (Anti-Crime Package), which raised the objective levels for progression (art. 112, LEP - Law of Criminal Execution) and the ceiling of art. 75 of the Penal Code to 40 years, resulting in longer stays in harsher regimes. The study also examines Law 14.843/2024 (“Law of Temporary Releases”), which restricts temporary releases, expands the scope of electronic monitoring, and reinforces criminological examinations—measures associated with risks of “stacking” in severe regimes, weakening of family/educational ties, and stigmas that hinder reintegration. Together, these normative changes put pressure on existing prison populations and strain the overcoming of the State of Incarceration. In terms of perspectives, the research conducts an empirical analysis of the recent evolution of the incarceration curve, even after the proclamation of the State of Incarceration, indicating that the legislative reforms mentioned in the section on setbacks tend to exert pressure on prison populations if they are not accompanied by compensatory policies for managing entry, stay, and exit from the system. In conclusion, this work argues that the decisions in ADPF 347 were necessary and partially effective: they consolidated bases for coordination and transparency, but are still insufficient to reverse the trend of increasing incarceration without robust counterbalancing measures at the entry points, during the course of serving the sentence, and at the exit points. Overcoming the situation observed in the judgment of ADPF 347 depends on normative, budgetary, and managerial convergence, with auditable metrics and social participation to sustain legitimacy and verifiable results.