O princípio da insignificância nos crimes contra a Administração Pública

Abstract

The current study presents as its main intent to analyze, within the criminal dogmatic system and through the doctrinal and jurisprudential procedure, the basic parameters that constitute the insignificance principle in the Brazilian legal system. Through this scope, it is adopted as the ultimate purpose to comprehend the structure of this principle’s application in Brazil, understanding its bases, its controversial aspects and its historical outline, in order to, finally, formulate a critical thinking regarding its adoption in the context of crimes against the Public Administration. Therefore, for the purpose of the present work’s construction, it was used the descriptive and deductive methodologies, combining the documental and systematic jurisprudential analysis of the insignificance principle with the conception of a scope about its structure. To this end, the work is organized into linear topics. First, the insignificance principle in its origin was presented, linked to the historical contextualization that fomented it. Then, its aspects were observed in crime theory. Afterward, it was traced an outlook about its applicability in Brazil, both for doctrine and jurisprudence. Finally, it comes to the analysis of reception of the insignificance concerning the crimes against the Public Administration, which exposes a qualitative and jurisprudential study, followed by observations and reviews to what was evaluated. What is shown from all this is that, despite its incidence not being recent, since it has been quoted and used by the national courts even before the 21st century, the insignificance principle isn’t constituted yet neither as a principle endowed with legal positivation in the criminal area nor as an withdrawal instrument of the typicality of conducts – those considered as minimal, for their minor or irrelevant detrimental effect on the legal interest – that is based on a consistent and common understanding by the courts. What is left with, in reality, is the utterance of antagonistic decisions in their conception for similar cases, which tend to move away from the key idea of insignificance and which generate legal insecurity.