POR UMA LEITURA (IN)CONSTITUCIONAL DA SÚMULA 231 – SUPERIOR TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA

Abstract

This article analyzes the (un)constitutionality of STJ Precedent 231, which prohibits the reduction of sentences below the legal minimum. The objective is to prove that the precedent violates the fundamental principles of legality and individualization of punishment. The justification lies in the need to expose the contradiction in the system, which, although it has promoted recent changes valuing the mitigating factor of confession (Precedent 545), still maintains the obstacle of the precedent statement, rendering it ineffective. It is demonstrated that this precedent survives without legal basis, being a “ghost” of Article 48 of the Penal Code of 1940 (revoked by the 1984 Reform). The bibliographic and documentary method was used, analyzing doctrine, legislation, and the 2023 Public Hearing. It is concluded that Precedent 231 is illegal, as it is contra legem, and unconstitutional, as it nullifies the second phase of sentencing and treats defendants unequally. Its immediate overruling is therefore advocated. Keywords: Precedent 231. Unconstitutionality. Individualization of Punishment. Confession. Sentencing.