Banca de DEFESA: ROBERTA BORGES DE BARROS

Uma banca de DEFESA de MESTRADO foi cadastrada pelo programa.
STUDENT : ROBERTA BORGES DE BARROS
DATE: 21/01/2026
TIME: 10:00
LOCAL: Sala de videoconferência da Faculdade de Direito
TITLE:

The Protection of Maternity and Childhood within the Criminal Justice System: An Analysis of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court’s Role in Light of Normative Frameworks and Collective Habeas Corpus No. 143.641

KEY WORDS:

Supremo Tribunal Federal; Protection of maternity and childhood; Female incarceration; House arrest; Drug policy

PAGES: 206
BIG AREA: Ciências Sociais Aplicadas
AREA: Direito
SUMMARY:

This dissertation seeks, first, to examine the role of the Federal Supreme Court of Brazil (Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF) in safeguarding the rights of pregnant women and mothers deprived of liberty when criminalized for conduct provided for under the Drug Law (Law No. 11.343/2006). With regard to its specific objectives, the study aims to map interpretive patterns in the Supreme Court’s decision-making concerning open-ended legal clauses related to the statutory hypotheses eligible for house arrest, as established by law and set forth in the judgment of Collective Habeas Corpus nº 143.641. The preliminary hypothesis is that the difficulties in achieving broader protection of maternity and childhood rights within the criminal justice system cannot be explained solely by the incorrect framing of so-called “exceptional circumstances,” but rather by the lack of specific criteria capable of reinforcing the residual use of pretrial detention for pregnant women and mothers of young children. In the same judgment, two additional issues debated in the collective habeas corpus proceedings were likewise subject to open-ended clauses that afforded interpretive discretion to judges: the defendants’ procedural history within the criminal justice system and the heightened evidentiary requirements concerning proof of the mother’s indispensability to the care of her children. The methodological strategy unfolds along three main paths. First, it identifies, within the Federal Constitution, international norms, and domestic legislation, the rights guaranteed to, and the restrictions imposed on, pregnant women and mothers deprived of liberty. Second, it seeks to understand the rationale and objectives of the collective habeas corpus decided by the Second Panel of the STF, through a case study encompassing not only the grounds of the judgment, but also the submissions of the parties and interveners, as well as the procedural acts preceding and following the Court’s review of the case. Finally, the study organizes the premises and reasoning of a sample of individual cases drawn from the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, consisting of judgments and decisions selected on the basis of indicators and values deemed relevant to the objectives of this research.With respect to the STF’s collegiate decision-making, specific patterns of adjudication were identified among the panels with criminal jurisdiction in this area. Notably, a higher level of dissent was observed in the Second Panel during the period analyzed, particularly in the adjudication of interlocutory appeals (agravos regimentais). This result is associated with the legal thesis asserting the exhaustive nature of the two hypotheses set forth in Article 318-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced after the judgment of the collective habeas corpus. An interpretive approach emerged within the panel according to which the denial of house arrest would be legitimate only in cases involving crimes committed with violence or serious threat, or crimes committed against a child. The prevailing position held that the adequacy of substitute house arrest requires a holistic assessment of the premises adopted by judges and lower courts. Moreover, the analysis of the decisions comprising the sample examined in this dissertation made it possible to identify more concrete criteria to guide judicial decision- making on relevant issues in this field, such as arguments concerning the lack of proof of indispensability to caregiving, reentries into the criminal justice system, and drug trafficking conducted within the home. Ultimately, the study confirms the insufficiency of the “exception versus rule” logic to adequately explain the obstacles to the broader granting of house arrest requests filed by pregnant women and mothers. What proves most relevant is the assessment of whether the criteria and premises articulated in the judicial reasoning underlying requests for substitute house arrest are sound.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Interno - 2332291 - ALEXANDRE ARAUJO COSTA
Interno - 1863338 - EVANDRO CHARLES PIZA DUARTE
Presidente - 1021564 - MARIA PIA DOS SANTOS LIMA GUERRA DALLEDONE
Externa à Instituição - Maria Rosinete dos Reis Silva