A (in)conformidade constitucional da colaboração premiada à luz da Lei de Organização Criminosa

Abstract

This study deals with the institute of state’s evidence, as the newest model of negotiation mechanism in criminal justice, currently the subject of discussions that are no longer restricted to the legal sphere, having become a subject of interest and debate for an entire society. The methodology used was exploratory scientific research, using a deductive method, with an qualitative approach, aiming to analyze the institute in the light of the Criminal Organization Law, entering the controversies generated by the failure to comply with the limits imposed by the legislature, with the purpose of clarifying that, in practice, agreements between prosecution and defense, as the principal means of obtaining evidence, may be jeopardizing the fundamental rights of those involved. Achieving these objectives, it was possible to verify that, despite the institute of state’s evidence being indispensable for the investigation of certain crimes, such as organized crime, in general, the arguments raised by the institute's constitutional nonconformity do not deserve to be upheld. since the problem that surrounds it is not normative but practical.