A responsabilidade penal do infrator de medida sanitária preventiva: uma abordagem a partir da teoria de Günther Jakobs
This article aims to understand the legitimacy of the application of the criminal sanction provided for in article 268 of the Penal Code to hold offenders of preventive health measures in order to contain Covid-19 disease, from the perspective of Günther Jakobs Theory. There is a public health crisi...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Portuguese |
| Published: |
2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=9054724 |
| Source: | Misión Jurídica: Revista de derecho y ciencias sociales, ISSN 1794-600X, Vol. 14, Nº. 21, 2021 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
|
| Summary: |
This article aims to understand the legitimacy of the application of the criminal sanction provided for in article 268 of the Penal Code to hold offenders of preventive health measures in order to contain Covid-19 disease, from the perspective of Günther Jakobs Theory. There is a public health crisis in Brazil and in the world. In this scenario, the public authorities announced measures to prevent the spread of the virus. In this sense, the typification technique compatible with the maximum anticipation of health protection is the abstract danger. Therefore, in view of the concrete possibility of Criminal Law failing to fulfill its function of fragmentary and subsidiary protection, it was asked: “In what theoretical model, will the criminal responsibility imposed on the infringer of norms to contain the pandemic seek legitimacy?” It is assumed that, its legitimacy will find support in the Systemic Theory, because when practicing the prohibited conduct, the agent breaks normative expectations and the penalty starts to demonstrate to society that, despite the violation of the norm, it is possible to trust in its validity. With a focus on bibliographic research, the concept of crime was considered, which ceases to protect health and starts to protect normative stability. In addition, the conflict between the right to freedom of movement and the right to health of the community was methodologically considered, given the controversy surrounding the ban on the movement of people in public places without the mandatory use of an individual protection mask. |
|---|