The current Code dates back to 1940, however, over the course of these eighty years of producing legal effects, several legislative changes have been included, such as Law 2019, known as the “Anti-Crime Package”. However, while these sporadic changes update the criminal law, they end up conferring legal inconsistency on the system.
Since Criminal Procedure is the yardstick for measuring the quality of a democratic state governed by the rule of law, it must be pro-legal and strictly adhere to the Federal Constitution. This will prevent, or at least reduce, the excesses of the State and the selective nature of the criminal justice system, which we should not be proud of in the recent past.
For this reason, improvements that regulate the Public Prosecutor's Office's investigative powers; the inclusion of rules on restorative justice, international legal cooperation; the use of digital evidence; and the harmonization of the powers of the civil and military police should be celebrated.
The controversial points, however, still pending a vote, are: restrictions on search and seizure actions; the possibility of the lawyer conducting a parallel investigation and producing evidence (defensive investigation); the early execution of the sentence (commonly known as "arrest in second instance") and rules on the use of police force.
Regarding the last point, it's worth emphasizing that the aim is not to diminish the power of police authorities, but rather to prevent excesses and impunity in the deaths of civilians and innocent people. It's clear that after installing cameras on police uniforms, police killings in São Paulo decreased by 80%.
Another major advance is the shift in focus to victims' rights and so-called restorative justice, which aims to help victims overcome the trauma they have suffered.
The hope is that these changes will provide greater justice for Brazilian citizens, whether through the criminal process itself or through better use of public spending, as the prison situation is a matter that requires attention and care, having even been ruled as an Unconstitutional State of Affairs by the Supreme Federal Court, meaning that one of the functions of punishment, that of rehabilitation, remains only on paper.
