Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-vdhp9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T12:11:48.658Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decision-making in an inquisitorial system: Lessons from Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Ludmila Ribeiro Open the ORCID record for Ludmila Ribeiro [Opens in a new window] ,
Alexandre M. A. Diniz Open the ORCID record for Alexandre M. A. Diniz [Opens in a new window]  and
Lívia Bastos Lages Open the ORCID record for Lívia Bastos Lages [Opens in a new window]
Ludmila Ribeiro*
Affiliation:
1Center for Crime and Public Safety Studies (CRISP), Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Alexandre M. A. Diniz
Affiliation:
2Geography Department, Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais (PUC Minas), Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Lívia Bastos Lages
Affiliation:
1Center for Crime and Public Safety Studies (CRISP), Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Brazil
*
Ludmila Ribeiro, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG) - Center for Crime and Public Safety Studies (CRISP) - Unidade Administrativa III (UFMG), Av. Presidente Antônio Carlos, no 6627, Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil., Email: lmlr@ufmg.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper seeks to understand how decision-making works at the first appearance hearings (Custody Hearings) in Brazil, an initiative that intends to make the Brazilian criminal justice system more accusatorial. We used primary data gathered in the hearings between April and December 2018 in nine Brazilian states. Binary logistic regression models were applied to identify the variables that affect the odds ratios of pretrial detention. Results indicated a high level of homology between the prosecutors' requests and the judges' decisions, even when controlling for the characteristics of offense and offender, which precludes any direct openness to the defense. Decision-making in the Custody Hearing reinforces the inquisitorial characteristics and the institutional features of the Brazilian Criminal Justice System, suggesting that the reforms carried out over the last years were not able to change how actors operate on a daily basis.

Information

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 101 - 121
Copyright
© 2022 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

How to cite this article: Ribeiro, Ludmila, Alexandre M. A. Diniz, and Lívia Bastos Lages. 2022. “Decision-Making in an Inquisitorial System: Lessons from Brazil.” Law & Society Review 56(1): 101-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12591

References

REFERENCES

Adorno, Sérgio. 1988. Os aprendizes do poder: o bacharelismo liberal na política brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.Google Scholar
Adorno, Sérgio. 1995. “Discriminação racial e justiça criminal em São Paulo.” Novos Estudos CEBRAP 43: 45–63.Google Scholar
Azevedo, Rodrigo, Sinhoretto, Jacqueline, and Lima, Renato Sérgio (coord). 2017. “Audiência de Custódia, Prisão Provisória e Medidas Cautelares: Obstáculos Institucionais e Ideológicos à Efetivação da Liberdade como Regra.” In Relatório de pesquisa. Conselho Nacional de Justiça: Ministério da Justiça.Google Scholar
Azevedo, Rodrigo, and Sinhoretto, Jacqueline. 2018. “O sistema de justiça criminal na perspectiva da antropologia e da sociologia.” BIB, São Paulo 1(84): 188–215.Google Scholar
Ballesteros, Paula Rodrigues. 2016. “Implementação das audiências de custódia no Brasil: análise de experiências e recomendações de aprimoramento.” Brasília: Ministério da Justiça.Google Scholar
Ballesteros, Paula, Álvaro Roberto Antanavicius, Fernandes, André Machado, Maya, Andréa De Boni, Nottingham, Antonio Pedro, Melchior, Lopes, Aury Jr., Caíque Ribeiro, Galícia, and Camilin, Marcie de Poli. 2019. Desafiando a inquisição ideias e propostas para a reforma processual penal no Brasil, Vol III. Santiago: Centro de Estudios de Justicia de las Américas (CEJA).Google Scholar
Baumer, Eric, Messner, Steven, and Felson, Richard. 2000. “The Role of Victim Characteristics in the Disposition of Murder Cases.” Justice Quarterly 17(2): 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, Kristin, Holsinger, Alexander, Lowenkamp, Christopher, and Warren, Madeline. 2017. “A Meta-Analytic Review of Pretrial Research: Risk Assessment, Bond Type, and Interventions.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 42(2): 443-67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, Marcelo. 2018. More Money, More Crime: Prosperity and Rising Crime in Latin America. Los Angeles: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Donald. 1976. The Behavior of Law. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Blumberg, Abraham S. 1966. “The Practice of Law as a Confidence Game-Organizational Cooptation of a Profession.” Law & Society Review 1: 15–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1974. “O mercado de bens simbólicos.” In A economia das trocas simbólicas, Vol 2. São Paulo: Perspectiva.Google Scholar
Chappell, Allison, and Maggard, Scott. 2020. “Applying Black's Theory of Law to Juvenile Justice Decisions.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 46: 461-82.Google Scholar
Colon, Katy, Kavanaugh, Philip R., Hummer, Don, and Ahlin, Eileen M. 2018. “The Impact of Race and Extra-Legal Factors in Charging Defendants with Serious Sexual Assault: Findings from a Five-Year Study of One Pennsylvania Court Jurisdiction.” Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice 16(2): 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, Arthur, and de Oliveira Júnior, Almir. 2016. “Novos padrões de investigação policial no Brasil.” Sociedade e Estado 31(1): 147-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa Ribeiro, Carlos Antonio. 1999. “Judicial Practices and the Meaning of Sentencing.” Dados 42(4): 691–727.Google Scholar
de Almeida, Frederico. 2014. “As elites da justiça: instituições, profissões e poder na política da justiça brasileira.” Revista de Sociologia e Política 22(52): 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Defensoria Pública do Rio de Janeiro (DPRJ). 2016. “Um ano de Audiência de Custódia no Rio de Janeiro.” https://defensoria.rj.def.br/uploads/arquivos/53f2bf4ac82541d3a0aa8bc6c6243c3e.pdfGoogle Scholar
Dodson, Michael. 2002. “Assessing Judicial Reform in Latin America.” Latin American Research Review 37(2): 200-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowling, Christopher, and Morgan, Anthony. 2019. “Predicting Repeat Domestic Violence: Improving Police Risk Assessment.” Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 581: 1–16.Google Scholar
Felson, Richard B., and Paré, Paul-Philippe. 2005. “The Reporting of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault by Nonstrangers to the Police.” Journal of Marriage and Family 67(3): 597–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flory, Thomas. 2015. Judge and Jury in Imperial Brazil, 1808–1871: Social Control and Political Stability in the New State. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Geis, Gilbert. 2012. “Revisiting Blumberg's “the Practice of Law as a Confidence Game”.” Criminal Justice Ethics 31(1): 31-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godoi, Rafael. 2019. “A arte de livrar.” Revista Brasileira de Segurança Pública 13(1): 140-56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves, Gabriella, Brito, Lany, and Filgueira, Yasmin. 2015. IV diagnóstico da Defensoria Pública no Brasil. Brasília: Ministério da Justiça.Google Scholar
Gottfredson, Michael, and Hindelang, Michael. 1979. “A Study of the Behavior of Law.” American Sociological Review 44: 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Kristian, Borg, Marian, and Miller, Bryan. 2013. “Mobilizing Law in Latin America: An Evaluation of Black's Theory in Brazil.” Law & Social Inquiry 38(2): 322-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunn, John, and Mevis, Paul. 2018. “Adversarial Versus Inquisitorial Systems of Trial and Investigation in Criminal Procedure.” In Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology in Europe. 3–17. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Instituto de Defesa do Direito de Defesa (IDDD). 2017. Audiências de Custódia: panorama nacional. São Paulo: IDDD. http://www.iddd.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Audiencias-de-Custodia_Panorama-Nacional_Relatorio.pdfGoogle Scholar
Instituto de Defesa do Direito de Defesa (IDDD). 2019. O Fim da liberdade. São Paulo: IDDD. http://www.iddd.org.br/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2019/09/OFimDaLiberdade_completo.pdfGoogle Scholar
Jesus Filho, José. 2017. “Administração penitenciária: o controle da população carcerária a partir da gestão partilhada entre diretores, judiciário e facções.” Ph.D. diss., São Paulo: Fundação Getúlio Vargas.Google Scholar
Jesus, Maria Gorete. 2020. “Verdade policial como verdade jurídica: narrativas do tráfico de drogas no sistema de justiça.” Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 35(102): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant de Lima, Roberto. 2004. “Direitos civis e direitos humanos: uma tradição judiciária pré-republicana?” São Paulo em Perspectiva 18(1): 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant de Lima, Roberto. 2010. “Sensibilidades jurídicas, saber e poder: bases culturais de alguns aspectos do direito brasileiro em uma perspectiva comparada.” Anuário Antropológico 35(2): 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant de Lima, Roberto, and Mouzinho, Glaucia. 2017. “Produção e reprodução da tradição inquisitorial no Brasil: Entre delações e confissões premiadas.” Dilemas-Revista de Estudos de Conflito 9(3): 505-29.Google Scholar
Kerche, Fábio. 2018. “Independência, Poder Judiciário e Ministério Público.” Caderno CRH 31(84): 567-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khaled, Salah Hassan Jr. 2010. “O Sistema Processual Penal brasileiro: Acusatório, misto ou inquisitório?” Civitas-Revista de Ciências Sociais 10(2): 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Byungbae, Spohn, Cassia, and Hedberg, Eric. 2015. “Federal Sentencing as a Complex Collaborative Process: Judges, Prosecutors, Judge–Prosecutor Dyads, and Disparity in Sentencing.” Criminology 53(4): 597–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurlychek, Megan, and Johnson, Brian. 2019. “Cumulative Disadvantage in the American Criminal Justice System.” Annual Review of Criminology 2: 291–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutateladze, Besiki, and Lawson, Victoria. 2017. “A New Look at Inequality: Introducing and Testing a Cross-Sectional Equality Measurement Framework in new York City.” Social Indicators Research 132(3): 993–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lages, Lívia. 2019. “Controlar ou punir: um estudo sobre os determinantes da prisão preventiva em Belo Horizonte.” Master thesis. Programa de pós-graduação em sociologia, Belo Horizonte: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.Google Scholar
Lages, Lívia, and Ribeiro, Ludmila. 2019. “Os determinantes da pretrial detention na Audiência de Custódia: reforço de estereótipos sociais?” Revista Direito GV 15(3): 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemgruber, Julita, Ribeiro, Ludmila, Musumeci, Leonarda, and Duarte, Thais. 2016. Ministério Público: guardião da democracia brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: CESeC.Google Scholar
Marrona, Marjorie Corrêa, and Kerche, Fábio. 2018. “O Ministério Público na Operação Lava Jato: como eles chegaram até aqui?” In Operação Lava Jato e a democracia brasileira, edited by Kerche, F., and Júnior, Féres, São, J. Paulo: Editora Contracorrente.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, Christi. 2016. “The Role of Courtroom Workgroups in Felony Case Dispositions: An Analysis of Workgroup Familiarity and Similarity.” Law & Society Review 50(3): 637-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, John W., and Rowan, Brian. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology 83(2): 340-63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moohr, Geraldine Szott. 2004. “Prosecutorial Power in an Adversarial System: Lessons from Current White Collar Cases and the Inquisitorial Model.” Buffalo Criminal Law Review 8(1): 165–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Jon. 2019. “Taking Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Seriously.” Judicature 103: 32.Google Scholar
Oliveira, Thiago. 2018. “Mecanismos sociais de decisões judiciais: um desenho misto explicativo sobre a aplicação da medida socioeducativa de internação.” Revista Brasileira de Sociologia-RBS 5(10): 58–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Mary T. 2012. A Decade of Bail Research in New York City. New York: CJA, New York City Criminal Justice Agency.Google Scholar
Prillaman, William C. 2000. The Judiciary and Democratic Decay in Latin America: Declining Confidence in the Rule of Law. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regoeczi, Wendy. 2018. “Solving Homicides: Understanding Trends and Patterns in Police Clearances of Lethal Violence.” In Homicide and Violent Crime. Vol. 23. 121-38. Emerald Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Rengifo, Andrés, Ávila, Lorena, Gélvez, Juan David, Ramírez, Lucía, and Mora, Paula. 2019. “Trato procesal y uso de la detención preventiva en una muestra de audiencias de control de garantías en Bogotá y Cali.” Cuadernos de Economía 38(77): 581–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, Ludmila. 2010. “A produção decisória do sistema de justiça criminal para o crime de homicídio: análise dos dados do estado de São Paulo entre 1991 e 1998.” Dados 53(1): 159-94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, Ludmila, and Diniz, Alexandre. 2020. “The Flow of Murder Cases Through the Criminal Justice System in a Brazilian City.” Homicide Studies 24(3): 242-67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, Ludmila, and Lima, Flora. 2020. “Será que vai virar processo? Determinantes da elucidação dos homicídios dolosos em uma cidade brasileira.” Opinião Pública 26(1): 66–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Andrew, and Young, Richard. 2012. “From Suspect to Trial.” In The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, From Suspect To Trial.Google Scholar
Sapori, Luís Flávio 1995. “A administração da justiça criminal numa área metropolitana.” Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 10(29): 143-57.Google Scholar
Silva, Cátia. 2001. “Promotores de Justiça e novas formas de atuação em defesa de interesses sociais e coletivos.” Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 16(45): 127-44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sudnow, David. 1965. “Normal Crimes: Sociological Features of the Penal Code in a Public Defender Office.” Social Problems 12(3): 255-76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsur, Yacov. 2017. “Bounding Reasonable Doubt: Implications for Plea Bargaining.” European Journal of Law and Economics 44(2): 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, Jeffery. 1995. “The Organization and Consequences of Social Pasts in Criminal Court.” The Sociological Quarterly 36(3): 587–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, J.T., and Kramer, J.H. 1996. “Court Communities Under Sentencing Guidelines: Dilemmas of Formal Rationality and Sentencing Disparity.” Criminology 34(3): 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, Jeffery. 2019. “Criminal Courts as Inhabited Institutions: Making Sense of Difference and Similarity in Sentencing.” Crime and Justice 48(1): 483–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vargas, Hustana. 2010. “Sem perder a majestade: “profissões imperiais” no Brasil.” Estudos de Sociologia 15(28): 2010.Google Scholar
Vargas, Joana. 2007. “Análise comparada do fluxo do sistema de justiça para o crime de estupro.” Dados-Revista de Ciências Sociais 50(4): 671-97.Google Scholar
Vargas, Joana. 2014. “Fluxo do sistema de justiça criminal.” Crime, polícia e justiça no Brasil. São Paulo: Contexto 1: 412-23.Google Scholar
Will, Susan, Handelman, Stephen, and Brotherton, David, eds. 2013. How they Got Away with it: White Collar Criminals and the Financial Meltdown. Columbia: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Xie, Min, and Baumer, Eric. 2019. “Crime victims' Decisions to Call the Police: Past Research and New Directions.” Annual Review of Criminology 2: 217-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ylang, Norah, and Holtfreter, Kristy. 2019. “The Decision to Arrest in Sexual Assault Case Processing: A Test of Black's Theory of the Behavior of Law.” Violence Against Women 26(10): 1141-63.Google ScholarPubMed