Carcereiros de si mesmos: análises criminológicas de discursos do TJPB sobre tornozeleiras eletrônicas

Abstract

Brazil has experienced an increase in incarceration since the beginning of the 21st century, ranking third among the countries with the highest number of prisoners in the world. Given the chaotic scenario, marked by the exponential increase in the number of inmates and the precarious conditions experienced by people in the prison system, electronic monitoring has emerged and developed as a “very effective" measure that would solve Brazil's over-incarceration problem, also promoting a reduction in prison costs and a more "humanized" sentence, thus re-socializing the inmate. However, according to official data from the National Penitentiary Department on the Brazilian prison system, incarceration continues to grow exponentially, concomitantly with the increase in the number of people using electronic monitoring in the country. Despite this, the social belief, including in publications and legal arguments, is that the electronic anklet is a disincarcerating device and extremely beneficial to the convict, functioning as a kind of award, and the possibility of investigating the arguments used by the Judiciary to apply this measure is expensive. In this sense, the general objective of this study was to analyze the application of the electronic monitoring policy in the state of Paraíba, based on judicial decisions by the state's Court of Justice. The method adopted was a review of the literature on electronic monitoring, together with documentary research. Initially, a brief bibliographical review was carried out on the use and application of electronic anklets in the main national databases. Subsequently, documentary research was carried out by searching the database of the Paraíba Court of Justice, using the term 'electronic anklet', with a time span from 2021 to 2023, and which dealt with the application of the measure, resulting in 6 decisions suitable for this research. As far as the arguments are concerned, the decisions included arguments which considered the anklet to be a benefit to the prisoner, as well as the perception that it is a neutral device, with a practically non-existent failure rate, in addition to there being no proof that the anklet hinders the routine or constrains the prisoner. In addition, positivist and deterministic discourses were presented to explain the commission of a crime concomitant with the use of electronic monitoring. Through these decisions, it was possible to conclude that, for the most part, anklets are perceived as such a positive measure for the state and the convict that any failure, whether in the device or in its proposals, is attributed to the monitored subject, who acts as a "jailer of himself"