This article examines how sentencing discretion in Brazil operates as a mechanism for reproducing authoritarian legal rationalities under democratic rule. It traces the origins of Brazil's discretionary sentencing to the 1940 Penal Code, enacted during Estado Novo, and shows how this architecture has persisted across political transitions. The article argues that discretion, forged under authoritarian conditions, has been normalized within democracy and facilitates institutionalized punitiveness. Judicial discretion sustains a punitive consensus and operates as a vector of penal selectivity, particularly against certain populations. By distinguishing between the authoritarian genealogy of discretionary sentencing and its contemporary punitive effects, and situating Brazil within Latin American and global patterns, the article contributes to debates on penal governance, institutional continuity, and post-authoritarian legal orders.
Associação dos Magistrados Brasileiros – AMB (2017) Quem Somos: A Magistratura que Queremos. Brasília: Associação dos Magistrados Brasileiros.
6.
BaptistaBGL (2020) A Crença no Princípio (ou Mito) da Imparcialidade Judicial. Revista Estudos Empíricos em Direito7(2): 203–223.
7.
BarattaA (2002) Criminologia Crítica e Crítica do Direito Penal: Introdução à Sociologia do Direito Penal, 3rd edn. Revan.
8.
BellC (2009) Transitional justice, interdisciplinarity and the state of the ‘field’ or ‘non-field’. International Journal of Transitional Justice3(1): 5–27.
9.
BentoC (2022) O Pacto da Branquitude. Companhia das Letras.
10.
BisiAOG, 2016. (In)justiça de Segurança Nacional: A Criminalização do Comunismo no Brasil entre 1935–1945. PhD thesis, Faculdade de Direito de Vitória, Brazil.
11.
BittnerE (1967) The police on skid-row: a study of peace keeping. American Sociological Review32(5): 699–715.
12.
BombiniG (2012) Límites Constitucionales en la Determinación Judicial de la Pena: La Función Referencial del Mínimo de Pena dentro del Marco Legal. In: AlagiaA (ed.) Determinación Judicial de la Pena y Ejecución de la Pena. Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos de la Nación, pp.33–54.
13.
BorgesJ (2019) O Que É Encarceramento em Massa?Pólen.
14.
BoschiJAP (2004) Das Penas e seus Critérios de Aplicação, 3rd edn. Livraria do Advogado.
15.
CaldeiraTPR (2000) City of Walls: Crime, Segregation, and Citizenship in São Paulo. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520341593.
16.
CamposGSQ (2021) Aplicação da Pena e o Problema da Discricionariedade Judicial: Breve Estudo Comparativo entre a Dosimetria Penal Brasileira e o Modelo de Sentencing Guidelines Norte-americano e Inglês. JusPodivm.
17.
CamposGSQ (2024) Discricionariedade Judicial e Autoritarismo na Aplicação da Pena: o ‘Decisionismo’ Antigarantista na Dosimetria Penal Brasileira. Revista Magister de Direito Penal e Processual Penal121: 76–95.
18.
CarvalhoS (2020) Penas e Medidas de Segurança no Direito Penal Brasileiro, 3rd edn. Saraiva.
19.
CerqueiraDLimaRSBuenoS, et al. (2019) Atlas da Violência 2019. IPEA & Fórum Brasileiro de Segurança Pública. Available at: https://www.ipea.gov.br/atlasviolencia (accessed 10 April 2025).
20.
ChevignyP (2003) Edge of the Knife: Police Violence in the Americas. New Press.
CuratoN (2017) A Duterte Reader: Critical Essays on Rodrigo Duterte's Early Presidency. Ateneo de Manila University Press.
23.
Cury UrzúaE (2009) Derecho Penal: Parte general, 9th edn. Ediciones UC.
24.
Dal SantoLP (2023) Mass incarceration in times of economic growth and inclusion? Three steps to understand contemporary imprisonment in Brazil. Theoretical Criminology27(4): 597–618.
25.
DouradoLMBFischerB (2021) Drug sentencing in Brazil: factors influencing sentencing outcomes in the criminal courts of Recife/PE. Journal of Crime and Criminal Justice Policy and Practice7(4): 335–344.
26.
DuceM (2000) La Reforma Procesal Penal en América Latina: Avances, Obstáculos y Lecciones Comparadas. Centro de Estudios de Justicia de las Américas (CEJA). Available at: https://cejamericas.org. (accessed 10 April 2025).
27.
EubanksV (2018) Automating Inequality: How High-tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. St. Martin’s Press.
28.
FeeleyMMSimonJ (1992) The new penology: notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal30(4): 449–474.
29.
FonsecaDS (2024) Between democratic modernization and authoritarian punitiveness in Brazil: mass incarceration, political rationalities and the dynamics of subnational variation. The British Journal of Criminology64(3): 538–557.
30.
FortesPRB (2015) How legal indicators influence a justice system and judicial behavior: the Brazilian national council of justice and ‘justice in numbers’. The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law47(1): 39–55.
31.
FragosoCF (2022) Autoritarismo e Sistema Penal, 3rd edn.Lumen Juris.
32.
FreidsonE (2001) Professionalism: The Third Logic. University of Chicago Press.
HendleyK (2009) ‘Telephone law’ and the ‘rule of law’: the Russian case. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law1(2): 241–262.
40.
HiteKCesariniP (2004) Authoritarian Legacies and Democracy in Latin America and Southern Europe. University of Notre Dame Press.
41.
HolstonJ (2007) Insurgent Citizenship: Disjunctions of Democracy and Modernity in Brazil. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400832781.
42.
HugginsMKHaritos-FatourosMZimbardoPG (2002) Violence Workers: Police Torturers and Murderers Reconstruct Brazilian Atrocities. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520928916.
43.
HungriaN (1941) O Direito Penal no Estado Novo. Revista Forense85: 11–18.
KhanO (2024) Judges as agents of coloniality: understanding the coloniality of justice at the pre-trial stage in Brazil. The British Journal of Criminology64: 1045–1062.
46.
LagesLBRibeiroL (2024) Every mind is a different world: do judges truly decide in such diverse ways?Brazilian Political Science Review18(3): 1–28.
47.
LagesLBRibeiroLMLRodriguesJNL (2025) Discricionariedade Judicial nas Audiências de Custódia: entre a Inovação e a Reprodução de Práticas Tradicionais. Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito12: 1–27.
48.
LarsonMS (1977) The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. University of California Press.
49.
LyraR (1958) Comentários ao Código Penal, 3rd edn. Forense.
50.
MacaulayF (2005) Democratización y poder judicial: agendas de reforma en competencia. América Latina Hoy39: 141–163.
51.
MacaulayF (2007) Knowledge production, framing and criminal justice reform in Latin America. Journal of Latin American Studies39(3): 627–651.
52.
MachadoMR (2016) Entre a lei e o juiz: os processos decisórios na definição de penas. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Criminais126: 1–22.
53.
MarchioriH (1995) Determinación Judicial de la Pena: Art. 41 del Código Penal. Marcos Lerner Editora.
54.
MelchiorAP (2023) Juristas em Resistência: Memórias das Lutas contra o Autoritarismo no Brasil. Contracorrente.
55.
Navas MondacaI (2024) Lecciones de Derecho Penal. Parte General, 3rd edn. Tirant lo Blanch.
NunesD (2014) Legislative proceedings outside parliament in authoritarian states. The case of the 1930 Italian and 1940 Brazilian criminal codes. Beiträge zur Rechtsgeschichte Österreichs2(3): 520–527. https://doi.org/10.1553/BRGOE2013-2s520.
58.
NunesRM (2015) The politics of sentencing reform in Brazil: autonomous bureaucrats, constrained politicians and gradual policy change. Journal of Latin American Studies47(1): 121–148.
59.
O'DonnellG (1996) Illusions about consolidation. Journal of Democracy7(2): 34–51.
60.
OliveiraD (2021) Racismo Estrutural: Uma Perspectiva Histórico-Crítica. Dandara.
61.
OliveiraFL (2022) Brazilian Judges and the judicialization of corporatist interests. Revista Direito e Práxis14(4): 2293–2317.
62.
OliveiraTR (2017) Mecanismos Sociais de Decisões Judiciais: um Desenho Misto Explicativo sobre a Aplicação da Medida Socioeducativa de Internação. Revista Brasileira de Sociologia5(10): 58–88.
63.
OliveiraTR (2019) Juvenile sentencing: a mixed-methods approach. Brazilian Political Science Review13(1): 1–26. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3235-8686.
64.
Palma OlivaresRA (2024) La Cuestión Carcelaria en Chile y su Continuo Colonial: una Aproximación Crítica e Interdisciplinaria a un Modelo Penitenciario Anacrónico. Revista de Estudios Judiciales8: 123–161.
65.
Pérez LiñánAMainwaringS (2010) Regime legacies and variance in the level of democracy: Latin America, 1978–2004. APSA 2010 Annual Meeting Paper. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1643065 (accessed 19 August 2025).
66.
PinheiroPS (1996) Democracies without citizenship. NACLA Report on the Americas30(2): 17–23.
67.
PintoAC (2020) Brazil in the era of fascism: the “new state” of Getúlio Vargas. In: IordachiCKallisA (eds) Beyond the Fascist Century. Palgrave Macmillan, pp.235–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46831-6_11.
68.
PopovaM (2012) Politicized Justice in Emerging Democracies: A Study of Courts in Russia and Ukraine. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139055345.
69.
PradoLR (2020) Curso de Direito Penal Brasileiro: Parte Geral, 22nd edn.Revista dos Tribunais.
70.
QueirozN (1943) O Novo Código de Processo Penal. Archivo Judiciario65: 9–17.
71.
ReinerR (2010) The Politics of the Police, 4th edn.Oxford University Press.
72.
ReyesDA (2016) The spectacle of violence in Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs35(3): 111–137.
73.
RibeiroLDinizAMALagesLB (2022) Decision-making in an inquisitorial system: lessons from Brazil. Law and Society Review56: 101–121.
74.
RibeiroLMArguelhesDW (2015) O Conselho no Tribunal: perfil Quantitativo das Ações contra o CNJ junto ao STF. Revista Direito e Práxis6(3): 464–503.
75.
RolimRC (2024) Autoritarismo Penal no Brasil: governo Vargas. Seaculum –Revista de História29(50): 29–48.
76.
SantosHLR (2023) Coloniality and structural violence in the criminalization of black and indigenous populations in Brazil. In: AlivertiACarvalhoHChamberlenASozzoM (eds) Decolonizing the Criminal Question: Colonial Legacies, Contemporary Problems. Oxford University Press, pp.201–216. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192899002.003.0012
77.
SaratAKearnsTR (1995) Law in Everyday Life. University of Michigan Press.
78.
SchinkeVD (2022) Judiciário e Autoritarismo: Regime Autoritário (1964–1985), Democracia e Pertinências, 2nd edn. Lumen Juris.
SimpsonG (2004) A snake gives birth to a snake: politics and crime in the transition to democracy in South Africa. In: DixonBVan Der SpuyE (eds) Justice Gained? Crime and Crime Control in South Africa’s Transition. UCT Press, pp.1–22.
81.
SimpsonG (2006) ‘Tell No lies, claim No easy victories’: a brief evaluation of South Africa’s truth and reconciliation commission. In: BraithwaiteJStrangH (eds) Restorative Justice and Civil Society. Cambridge University Press, pp.220–240.
82.
SkaarE (1999) Truth commissions, trials – or nothing? Policy options in democratic transitions. Third World Quarterly20(6): 1109–1128.
83.
SkolnickJH (1967) Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society. Wiley.
84.
SolerS (1992) Derecho Penal Argentino, Vol. II. TEA.
85.
SozzoM (2016) Democratization, politics and punishment in Argentina. Punishment & Society18(3): 301–324.
86.
StarrS (2014) Evidence-based sentencing and the scientific rationalization of discrimination. Stanford Law Review66(4): 803–872.
87.
TestaASantosMRRibeiroLML, et al. (2022) Assessing racial disparities in homicide sentencing: findings from Brazil. Journal of Interpersonal Violence38(9–10): 6553–6575.
UlmerJT (2019) Criminal courts as inhabited institutions: making sense of difference and similarity in sentencing. Crime and Justice48(1): 483–522.
90.
UlmerJTZajacGRodriguezAE (2025) Geographic arbitrariness in capital punishment: death as an inhabited institution. American Sociological Review90(2): 318–348.
91.
UrízarAABustosAP (2025) El Proceso de Deteminación de la Pena en Chile: Una Aproximación Sustantiva y Procesal. In: Campos GSQ, Bedê Jr. A and Anitua GI (2025). A Sentença Criminal na América Latina: Peculiaridades Locais, Problemas e Desafios Comuns. Tirant lo Blanch, pp.99–125.
92.
VergaraP (1948) Das Penas Principais e sua Aplicação. Boffoni.
WelchM (2009) Punishment in America: Social Control and the Ironies of Imprisonment. Sage.
95.
Wiebelhaus-BrahmE (2010) Truth Commissions and Transitional Societies: The Impact on Human Rights and Democracy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203862025.
96.
WilenmannJMedinaFOlivaresE, et al. (2019) La determinación de la pena en la práctica judicial chilena. Política Criminal14(27): 456–490.
97.
ZaffaroniER (2011) Em Busca das Penas Perdidas: A Perda da Legitimidade do Sistema Penal. Revan.
