Brazil's Attorney General Opposes Suspension of Sentencing Law Affecting January 8 Defendants

Brazil's Prosecutor General Paulo Gonet has formally opposed the suspension of the Dosimetry Law, a criminal justice measure that establishes new criteria for sentence reduction and regime progression for those convicted of attacks on democratic institutions. The law was initially vetoed entirely by President Lula but was partially reinstated after Congress overrode part of the presidential veto and promulgated it through the legislative process.

The law, which amends provisions of the Penal Code and Law of Penal Execution, has become the subject of judicial challenge, with political parties and civil society organizations questioning its validity in the Supreme Court. Justice Alexandre de Moares, the rapporteur assigned to the case, suspended the law's application in May pending plenary analysis of constitutional challenges raised against it.

In his official opinion submitted to the court, Gonet stated that the Prosecutor General's Office has not taken a conclusive position on the law's constitutionality. He argued that evidence of malicious intent or legislative bad faith—specifically that the law was designed to benefit those convicted of the January 8 incidents—remains unclear. Gonet contended that legislative innovation responding to historical circumstances and institutional demands represents normal democratic functioning rather than unconstitutional casuistry.

The Prosecutor General rejected arguments that the law amounts to concealed amnesty, emphasizing that it neither eliminates criminal culpability nor voids existing convictions. While acknowledging that the law may produce favorable effects for certain defendants, Gonet maintained this consequence alone does not convert the statute into an unconstitutional act of clemency. He noted that alterations to provisions concerning crimes against democratic institutions merely clarified language already approved by the Chamber of Deputies, presenting no legislative process defects.

Gonet further argued that judicial intervention to overturn legislative decisions on matters not explicitly regulated by the Constitution would constitute improper institutional overreach. He emphasized that the Constitution does not prohibit lawmakers from reassessing criminal policy and sentencing frameworks for specific crime categories. With the Prosecutor General's opinion now submitted, the case is positioned for plenary consideration by the Supreme Court.