Comments on the Judgment of Habeas Corpus nº 124.520: fictional redemption of sentence

Comments on the Judgment of Habeas Corpus nº 124.520: fictional redemption of sentence

Authors

Abstract

The present work aims to analyze the content of the judgment of Habeas Corpus nº 124.250, in the area of which the Federal Supreme Court did not recognize the right of detainee to the redemption of the sentence without the accomplishment of work activity, what was intended in view the lack of structure in the prison unit. By means of a dogmatic analysis of the hypotheses of jurisdictional control added to the axiological framework of the Constitution, we conclude by defending a thesis contrary to that defended the one tried.

Author Biography

Felipe Gonçalves Fernandes, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil)

Procurador do Estado de São Paulo desde 2010. Professor de Direito Administrativo, Direito do Trabalho e Processo do Trabalho. Bacharel em Direito pela Universidade Federal do Ceará (2009). Especialista em Direito do Estado pela Escola Superior da Procuradoria Geral do Estado de São Paulo (2014). Mestre e Doutorando em Direito Administrativo pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo. E-mail: felipefernandes_9@hotmail.com

Revista de Direito Administrativo e Infraestrutura - RDAI

Downloads

Published

2021-05-14

How to Cite

FERNANDES, Felipe Gonçalves. Comments on the Judgment of Habeas Corpus nº 124.520: fictional redemption of sentence: Comments on the Judgment of Habeas Corpus nº 124.520: fictional redemption of sentence. Journal of Public Law and Infrastructure | RDAI, São Paulo: Thomson Reuters | Livraria RT, v. 3, n. 10, p. 185–192, 2021. Disponível em: https://rdai.com.br/index.php/rdai/article/view/345. Acesso em: 24 nov. 2024.

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 10 (2019)

Section

Comments of Jurisprudence | Comentários à Jurisprudência

License

This journal is licensed by (CC BY-NC-ND)  
Submission and publication of articles are free; peer-reviewed; the journal uses CrossCheck (anti-plagiarism); and complies with the COPE Editors' Guide; Committee on Publication Ethics, in addition to the Elsevier and SciELO recommendations. 
Check the Rules for the submission and evaluation of the RDAI.