The Senate’s Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ) unanimously approved, on Wednesday (18/12), a bill preventing the progression of sentence regimes in cases of serious heinous crimes, such as rape and kidnapping. Bill 853/2024 stipulates that certain crimes must be served exclusively in a closed regime. The approved text was classified as conclusive, meaning it will not require a Senate plenary vote and will proceed directly to the Chamber of Deputies for analysis. On the same day, Minister of Justice and Public Security Ricardo Lewandowski signed an ordinance revoking a rule that had expanded the powers of the Federal Highway Police (PRF).
This Content Is Only For Subscribers
To unlock this content, subscribe to INTERLIRA Reports.
Serious Heinous Crimes
During the review process, the bill was amended to limit its application to the most severe crimes, as opposed to the initial proposal, which encompassed all heinous crimes. Among the crimes targeted are homicides committed by death squads, rape, trafficking of children and adolescents, genocide, and epidemics resulting in death.
Permitted in Other Cases
The progression of sentence regimes remains permitted for other heinous crimes, such as bodily harm followed by death and extortion through kidnapping.
Sentencing Regimes
The legislation outlines three types of sentencing regimes. The strictest, the closed regime, applies to sentences over eight years, with incarceration in maximum or medium-security prisons. The semi-open regime is for sentences between four and eight years for non-repeat offenders and includes temporary release benefits. The open regime applies to sentences under four years, allowing inmates to stay in prison units at night and work outside during the day, with court authorization.
Revocation of PRF Powers
Minister Ricardo Lewandowski’s ordinance revoked a rule from the Bolsonaro administration that had expanded the Federal Highway Police’s (PRF) powers. The new ordinance restricts PRF actions during joint operations with other security agencies and specifies that “the PRF may not perform functions specific to the judicial police or investigate criminal offenses,” which are exclusive to federal and civil police.
Prominence of the PRF
The PRF gained prominence during the Bolsonaro administration and was involved in controversial actions, such as highway blockades during the second round of the 2022 election, which hindered voter movement. Judicial police forces, such as the Federal and Civil Police, are responsible for investigations and compliance with court orders under the Constitution. The PRF is an ostensive force, primarily responsible for operations on federal highways, not investigations.
Joint Operations
In 2021, the Ministry of Justice, under André Mendonça — now a Supreme Federal Court (STF) minister — authorized the PRF to participate in joint operations with other police forces, granting powers like entering locations under search warrants and drafting detailed reports. The current Ministry of Justice’s position is that these functions should be exclusive to judicial police forces. In August, the PRF participated in an operation in Cracolândia, São Paulo, alongside the Public Prosecutor’s Office and other agencies, an action based on the now-revoked ordinance.
Public Security Amendment
The changes also align the PRF’s role with the Public Security Amendment (PEC), a key initiative of the Lewandowski administration. The amendment proposes creating a new federal ostensive police force based on the PRF. According to the ministry, maintaining judicial police functions within the PRF would contradict this new structure.
Analysis:
The text addresses two central themes that directly impact public security in Brazil: the tightening of legislation for heinous crimes and the redefinition of the Federal Highway Police’s (PRF) responsibilities. These initiatives reflect distinct but interconnected efforts to improve crime prevention and the organization of the public security system. However, both raise questions about their effectiveness and practical consequences.
Restricting the progression of sentencing regimes for the most serious heinous crimes reinforces the notion of harsher punishments as a response to high-gravity offenses. This measure could have a positive short-term impact by increasing the population’s sense of justice and security, particularly regarding crimes that shock due to their violence. However, without rehabilitation and social reintegration policies, this approach may exacerbate prison overcrowding, further complicating inmate management and rehabilitation—key factors in reducing recidivism.
The decision to revoke the expanded powers of the PRF, on the other hand, reflects an effort to reorganize the roles of law enforcement agencies in line with the Constitution and to avoid overlapping functions. This measure could bring greater clarity to the responsibilities of security institutions, enhancing the efficiency of judicial police forces such as the Federal and Civil Police. The proposal to create a new federal ostensive police force under the Public Security Amendment (PEC) appears as an attempt to address potential operational gaps. However, its implementation will require considerable time and resources.
Sources: A Folha de SP; G1.
