The manifest unconstitutionality of mandatory imprisonment established by Law 13.964/19 in the jury court

Freedom is the main premise that governs the Brazilian legal system, especially in the criminal sphere. The presumption of innocence or non-guilt carved into the constitutional text, in turn, is the guaranteeing principle of this state of freedom. According to which, no one will be found guilty - a state that leads to the conviction - until all remedies are exhausted in the course of the process. This matter was debated and settled by the justices of the Supreme Court in the judgment of ADCs 43, 44, and 54, which dealt with the provisional execution of the penalty. Law 13,964/19, however, changed art. 492, I, of CPP/41, adding item "e", and thus, starting to admit, in the Jury Court, the provisional execution of the penalty, when it is equal to or greater than 15 years of imprisonment, even if with appeal in process. A terrible mistake by the legislator, who subverted the constitutional order. The objective here collimated is to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the provisional execution of the penalty established by the law in question. For this, it is necessary to discuss the constitutional principles that underlie freedom as a rule. Then, prison and its existing modalities in Brazil, appearing as the ultimate ratio of law. Consequently, it is urgent to demonstrate the problems concerning the Jury Court and the inconsistency of the sovereignty of the verdicts to justify the provisional execution. And this, not only from the double degree of jurisdiction, but from the current understanding of the justices of the STF, to finally reaffirm the unconstitutionality of the measure.