On November 3, 2026, in Brasília, the Federal Senate concluded its vote on the Public Security Constitutional Amendment Bill (PEC) and separated proposals regarding the reduction of the age of criminal responsibility from the main text, advancing them as distinct legislative measures. Drafted by Senators Rogério Marinho (PL-RN) and Camilo Santana (PT-CE), the two proposed amendments seek to stiffen the state’s response to offenses committed by minors, yet they diverge significantly on the minimum age threshold and the scope of covered offenses. This divergence carries significant weight considering socio-educational data, where robbery and drug trafficking account for the majority of juvenile offenses on record.
This Content Is Only For Subscribers
To unlock this content, subscribe to INTERLIRA Reports.
Robbery and Drug Trafficking Lead Case Records
The National Survey by the National Socio-Educational Service System (Sinase) registered 13,367 infractions attributed to 12,203 adolescents serving custodial or liberty-restricting socio-educational measures as of August 2025. Robbery (29.1%) and drug trafficking (27.9%) accounted for a combined 57% of all recorded offenses, while homicide ranked third at 9.8%. The survey encompassed 25 states and the Federal District; the state of Minas Gerais was excluded after failing to submit data. These figures characterize the offense profile of adolescents detained under these specific custodial measures and do not represent the overall proportion of juvenile participation in national crime statistics.
Two Proposals with Distinct Scopes
The amendment authored by Rogério Marinho (PEC Amendment 19/2026) proposes lowering the age of criminal majority from 18 to 16 as a rule, and down to 14 in cases involving heinous crimes, torture, drug trafficking, and participation in organized criminal organizations. Conversely, the draft by Camilo Santana (PEC Amendment 20/2026) restricts the threshold reduction to age 16 solely for offenses formally designated as heinous under federal law. Under this second proposal, drug trafficking and simple robbery would remain excluded from the reform. The practical coverage of each amendment hinges on both the legal classification of the conduct and the age of the offender; as such, Sinase baseline percentages alone cannot determine how many youths would be tried as adults.
Accountability and Prevention of Criminal Recruitment
Currently, adolescents who commit infractions are subject to measures established under the Statute of the Child and Adolescent (ECA), ranging from formal warnings to socio-educational internment. Should either constitutional amendment pass, adolescents falling under the revised criteria would be prosecuted under adult criminal law, altering judicial proceedings, applicable sentencing guidelines, and carceral conditions. A central concern remains the impact of this transition on juvenile recruitment by organized crime. Thiago Amparo, attorney and professor of international law and human rights at FGV Direito SP, highlights the operational risk that earlier entry into the adult prison system would heighten minors’ vulnerability to gang recruitment. While Sinase statistics outline which offenses would be affected, they do not project the actual impact that lowering the age of majority would have on recidivism rates or criminal gang recruitment.
Analysis
The two proposals address distinct legal and operational objectives. Senator Camilo Santana’s measure limits punitive severity to a narrow spectrum of heinous crimes, deliberately excluding two of the most frequent offenses identified in national juvenile custody data. Senator Rogério Marinho’s text significantly expands the legislative scope to encompass robbery and narcotics trafficking, allowing adult criminal liability to begin at age 14 for the latter. This divergence defines which cases would shift to the adult criminal court system.
The eventual impact on public security depends on whether these measures deter future offenses or disrupt the recruitment of youth by illicit factions. If the objective is violence reduction, outcomes must be evaluated by shifts in crime rates and the system’s capacity to rehabilitate adolescents after sentences are served. While the count of minors tried as adults will measure the legal reach of the amendment, only a measurable decline in recidivism will demonstrate whether it improved crime prevention.
Sources: G1 [1], [2]; Folha de SP; Gov.br.
