Pardoning and Punishing in Times of Transition: The Pardon Appeal (Recurso de Graça) on the Brazilian Council of State (1828-1834)

Costa, Arthur Barrêtto de Almeida

doi:10.1590/2179-8966/2019/37812

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Artigo • Rev. Direito e Práx. 10 (4) • Oct-Dec 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2179-8966/2019/37812 copy

Pardoning and Punishing in Times of Transition: The Pardon Appeal (Recurso de Graça) on the Brazilian Council of State (1828-1834)

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to discuss the main aspects related to the way which pardon was treated in the Brazilian second State Council. I analyzed some 160 cases from the council’s records. I sow that most of the emperor’s decisions follow the opinion of the Council; the cases related mostly to military and slave criminality; the use of pardon is different from the suggestions from legal literature, but contributed to control focuses of instability in a turbulent period.

Keywords:
State Council; Pardon; Legality

Crime	Quantity	Percentage
Death/Murder	42	24,1%
Insubordination/ Disobedience/etc	20	11,5%
Wounds/Aggression	12	6,8%
Theft	9	5,1%
Finding of weapons	8	4,6%
Robbery	8	4,6%
Sedition	7	4%
Abuse of free press	6	3,4%
Counterfeit currency	5	2,9%
Others²⁰ 20 Under “others” I grouped the following crimes: threat (2 cases); article 99 of the Criminal Code (1); assuada (1); bankruptcy (1); bigamy (1); slap (2); calumny (1); seditious letters (1); political crimes (2); let an incarcerated person flight away (2); steal weapons from a guard (1); defection (3); extortion (1); forgery (2); injury (2); wrong done to a commission (1); prevarication (1); wrong imprisonment (2); gang/leader of thieves (2); brawl (1); treason (1). Among the 12 crimes of harm/aggression, 2 were against superiors; and, among the 42 murders, 1 was actually an attempt and 5 were committed by slaves against their masters or relatives.	33	18,9%
Unknown	24	13,8%

Penalty	Quantity	Percentage
Forced labor	41	21,8%
Imprisonment	37	19,6%
Death	31	16,4%
Galleys	25	13,3%
Fine	14	7,4%
Exile to a certain place (degredo)	14	7,4%
Loss of patent	5	2,7%
Whipping	5	2,7%
Perpetual inability to hold a public	3	1,6%
Reparation of damage	2	1,1%
Loss of military wage	1	0,5%
Loss of public office	1	0,5%
Exile from a certain place (desterro)	1	0,5%
Ordinary penalty²⁹ 29 Those were the one established by law, and not by the judge’s arbitrium.	1	0,5%
Not informed	7	3,7%

Penalty	Medium duration (years)	Perpetual penalties	Sample	Penalty not informed
Prison	3,41	2	37	2
Forced labor	5,26	1	41	7
Exile to a certain place (degredo)	6	1	14	1
Galleys	7,3	6	25	0

Profession/Legal condition	Quantity
Military	65
Slave	21
Foreigner	10
Peace judge	2
Freed man	5
Dark skinned	3
Priest	2
Creole	1
Unknown	79

Result		Free defendant ³² 32 Numeric values: Commutation - 60 times, being: pardon – 34; commutation stricto sensu – 26. Non-commutation: 36. Discrepancy - 47, being: majority for commutation – 22; majority for non-commutation – 15; draw – 8; not informed – 2. Not informed: 10.	Slave defendant ³³ 33 Numeric values: commutation – 2 times, being: pardon – 1; commutation stricto senso – 1. Non-commutation: 9. Discrepancy: 5, being: majority for commutation – 2; majority for non-commutation – 2; not informed – 1.
Commutation	Pardon	22%	6%
Commutation	Commutation stricto senso	16%	6%
No commutation		24%	56%
Discrepancy	Majority for commutation	15%	13%
	Majority of non-commutation	10%	13%
	Draw	5%	6%
	Not informed	1%	0%
Not informed		7%	0%

Attitude of the Emperor or the Regency		Numeric Value
Follows the opinion		69
Goes against the opinion³⁴ 34 The opinion recommends the commutation to a certain penalty and the Emperor decides to commute, but to a higher penalty than the one recommended.		1
Discrepant opinion	Follows the majority	1
Discrepant opinion	It is impossible to determine the majority	3
There is no opinion	The Emperor commutes	1
There is no opinion	The Emperor does not commute	11
No information		12
The emperor does not decide		68³⁵ 35 One case by Peter I, and the rest by the regency.

Justification	Frequency	Percentage
New analysis of the case	46	37,7%
Passion of Christ	24	19,7%
Correction of legislative flaws	14	11,4%
Personal circumstances of the defendant	11	9%
Generic motivation	10	8,2%
The time in prison had purged the guilt	1	0,8%
Others	16	13,1%

Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Rua São Francisco Xavier, 524 - 7º Andar, CEP: 20.550-013, (21) 2334-0507 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: direitoepraxis@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Sobre o autor

Arthur Barrêtto de Almeida Costa Master’s Student in Law and J.D. at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, under supervision of prof. Ricardo Sontag and with a scholarship from CAPES. Member of Studium Iuris ¬– Research Group on the History of Legal Culture (CNPq/UFMG). This research was financed by FAPEMIG. E-mail: arthurbarretto@oi.com.br