Author(s) Joana Aguiar Rodrigues
Advisor(s) Flávia Noversa Loureiro
Year 2017
Synopsis Coercion measures, even if essential to the discovery of material truth and the reestablishment of legal peace, directly collide with the fundamental rights of citizens, especially with the right to freedom, so a careful and justified application will always be imposed. Among these, preventive detention appears as the most severe, fully limiting the defendant’s freedom, which leads to his consecration as an exceptional measure, applied only when the others prove to be inadequate or insufficient, in the specific case. It is questioned, however, if the defendant subject to that measure could be doubly punished, that is, criminal and labor punished. The problem is related to the (in)justification of the labor absences given by the preventive worker. Another of the coercion measures addressed here is the house arrest, supervised by electronic surveillance. This, although it is considered as less damaging, also imposes a limitation (integral?) on the defendant’s freedom. In this way, the possibility of a double punishment, in the criminal and labor area, is discussed again, namely in the (im)possibility that the defendant subject to this measure has to be allowed to leave the house in which he should remain to work.
See more here.
Author(s) Joana Aguiar Rodrigues
Advisor(s) Flávia Noversa Loureiro
Year 2017
Synopsis Coercion measures, even if essential to the discovery of material truth and the reestablishment of legal peace, directly collide with the fundamental rights of citizens, especially with the right to freedom, so a careful and justified application will always be imposed. Among these, preventive detention appears as the most severe, fully limiting the defendant’s freedom, which leads to his consecration as an exceptional measure, applied only when the others prove to be inadequate or insufficient, in the specific case. It is questioned, however, if the defendant subject to that measure could be doubly punished, that is, criminal and labor punished. The problem is related to the (in)justification of the labor absences given by the preventive worker. Another of the coercion measures addressed here is the house arrest, supervised by electronic surveillance. This, although it is considered as less damaging, also imposes a limitation (integral?) on the defendant’s freedom. In this way, the possibility of a double punishment, in the criminal and labor area, is discussed again, namely in the (im)possibility that the defendant subject to this measure has to be allowed to leave the house in which he should remain to work.
See more here.