Description
This paper addresses the issue of consensual criminal justice with a Brazilian scope, analyzing whether the expansion of negotiation mechanisms, through broader agreements between prosecution and defense, will reinforce stigmas and result in violations of fundamental rights of the accused. The general objective is the analysis of the plea bargain tool and the negotiant mechanisms arising from it, the already existing international experiences, as well as the feasibility and impact of any expansion of the methods negotiated in the Brazilian legal system. This theme is extremely relevant today in view of the expansionary trend of negotiant justice that occurs in several countries. The research was conducted using the hypothetical deductive method and the monographic procedure method with bibliographic and documental research techniques. The reader is initially introduced to the negotiation principles through their context of emergence in the United States of America, with the plea bargain, as well as the development with negotiant justice in other countries. Then, there is the presentation of the consensual mechanisms already existing in the Brazilian scope, as well as the presentation of the legislative project that proposes its expansion. In the last chapter, the differences between the Brazilian and North American legal systems, the influence of the latter in the Brazilian legal system, statistics that demonstrate the selectivity of Brazilian punitive law, and the fundamental guarantees that can be violated with the use of more comprehensive consensual methods are then addressed. It is concluded that the consensual methods, in the matter of efficient and swift forms of resolution of criminal cases, should be used with great caution and only in specific cases, due to the possibility of serious violations to the guarantees and fundamental rights from the use of abbreviated procedures.
