A desalentadora função das punições: revisitando as Teorias da Pena à luz da Psicologia Experimental
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17808/des.0.1346Keywords:
Teorias da Pena, Psicologia Experimental, Psicologia da Punição, Justiça RestaurativaAbstract
Resumo: O argumento de que as penas privativas de liberdade não funcionam já foi repisado inúmeras vezes na literatura criminológica. No entanto, a defesa da prisão como solução para a criminalidade segue cada vez mais forte na esfera pública, sendo um argumento rotineiramente invocado em debates legislativos e na prática judicial. Para compreender a persistência desse discurso, examinamos a literatura recente em Psicologia Experimental e o que os estudos empíricos têm a dizer sobre processos psicológicos relacionados à decisão de punir um transgressor e à decisão de transgredir normas. Buscou-se, assim, uma resposta com base em evidências científicas para a seguinte pergunta: penas privativas de liberdade são efetivas em suas declaradas funções preventivas? Em primeiro lugar, a tradição de pesquisa revisada mostra que, embora as pessoas geralmente se utilizem de argumentos preventivos para justificar punições, são as intuições retributivistas que efetivamente guiam essas decisões. Por sua vez, do ponto de vista da mente das pessoas que são punidas, os estudos mostram que pressupostos do argumento preventivo - o de que os destinatários da lei penal são capazes de calcular os "custos" associados à severidade da punição, por exemplo - carecem de base empírica consistente. Sugerimos, com base nessa revisão, que as teorias da pena tradicionais na dogmática penal sejam reformuladas, inclusive com vistas a uma compreensão mais ampla das respostas possíveis ao fenômeno delitivo, menos focada na centralidade das penas privativas de liberdade.
Palavras-chave: Teorias da Pena; Psicologia Experimental; Psicologia da Punição; Justiça Restaurativa.
Abstract: The argument that prison sentences do not work has been repeated many times in the criminological literature. However, the opposite view seems resilient and ever-stronger in the public sphere, being routinely invoked in legislative debates and judicial practice. To understand the persistence of this discourse, we examine the recent literature in Experimental Psychology and discuss what empirical studies have to say about both psychological processes related to punishment decisions, and transgressor's decisions to take risks and violate rules. Our aim was to find an evidence-based answer to the following question: is legal punishment an effective prevention strategy? The reviewed tradition of research shows that, while people use preventive arguments to justify punishments, it is retributive intuitions that guide their decisions. On the other hand, from the point of view of the minds of those who are punished, studies show that various assumptions of the preventive argument - that the recipients of criminal law are able to calculate the 'costs' associated with the severity of punishment, for example - lack consistent empirical basis. As a conclusion from this review, we suggest that traditional punishment theories should be reformulated, including a broader view of possible responses to the criminal phenomenon, less focused on the centrality of prison sentences.
Keywords: Theories of Punishment; Experimental Psychology; Psychology of Punishment; Restorative Justice.
References
AHARONI, Eyal & FRIDLUND, Alan J. Punishment without reason: isolating retribution in lay punishment of criminal offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Vol. 18, n. 4, pp. 599-625, 2012. 10.1037/a0025821
APEL, Robert. Sanctions, Perceptions, and Crime: Implications for Criminal Deterrence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. Vol. 29, pp. 67-101, 2013. 10.1007/s10940-012-9170-1
BALES, William D. & PIQUERO, Alex R. Assessing the impact of imprisonment on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, Vol. 8, pp. 71-101, 2012. 10.1007/s11292-011-9139-3.
BARATTA, Alessandro. Criminologia Crítica e Crítica do Direito Penal: Introdução à Sociologia do Direito Penal. Rio de Janeiro: Revan, 2017.
BAUMARD, Nicolas & SHESKIN, Mark. Partner choice and the Evolution of a Contractualist Morality. In: Decety, J. & Wheatley, T. (Eds.). The moral brain: A multidisciplinary perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 35-48, 2015. 10.7551/mitpress/9988.003.0005
BECKER, Gary S. Crime and Punishment: an economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, vol. 76, n. 2, pp. 169-217, 1968. 10.1007/978-1-349-62853-7_2
BITTENCOURT, Cezar Roberto. Tratado de Direito Penal - Parte Geral. 22ª ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2016.
BRASIL. A investigação de homicídios no Brasil. Ministério da Justiça; Fórum Brasileiro de Segurança Pública: Brasília, 2014.
BRONSTEEN, John; BUCCAFUSCO, Christopher; MASUR, Jonathan. Happiness and Punishment. The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 76, n. 3, pp. 1037-1082, 2009.
CAPPI, Riccardo. Pensando as respostas estatais às condutas criminalizadas: um estudo empírico dos debates parlamentares sobre a redução da maioridade penal (1993 - 2010). Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito. vol. 1, n. 1, jan, pp. 10-27, 2014. 10.19092/reed.v1i1.6
CARLSMITH, Kevin M. The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 42, pp. 437-451, 2006. 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.06.007
CARLSMITH Kevin M., Darley John M., ROBINSON Paul H. Why do we punish? Deterrence and Just Deserts as Motives for Punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (2), 284-299, 2002. 10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.284
CARLSMITH, Kevin M. & DARLEY, John M. Psychological Aspects of Retributive Justice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 193-236, 2008. 10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00004-4.
CARLSMITH Kevin M. & SOOD, Avani Mehta. The fine line between interrogation and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 45, n. 1, pp. 191-196, 2009. 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.025
CHALFIN, Aaron & MCCRARY, Justin (2017). Criminal deterrence: a review of the literature. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 55, n. 1, pp. 5-48. 10.1257/jel.20141147
CHEN, M. Keith & SHAPIRO, Jesse M. Do Harsher Prison Conditions Reduce Recidivism? A Discontinuity-based Approach. American Law and Economics Review. Vol. 9, n. 1, pp. 1-29, 2007. 10.1093/aler/ahm006
CUSHMAN, Fiery. Is non-consequentialism a feature or a bug? In: KIVERSTEIN, Julian. The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of the Social Mind. New York: Routledge, 2017.
DINIZ, Debora. A custódia e o tratamento psiquiátrico no Brasil: Censo 2011. Brasília: Letras Livres / Editora UnB, 2013.
DURLAUF, Steven N. & NAGIN, Daniel S. Imprisonment and crime: can both be reduced? Criminology & Public Policy. Vol. 10, n. 1, pp. 13-54, 2011. 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2010.00680.x
ELLSWORTH, Phoebe C. & GROSS, Samuel R. Hardening of the attitudes: Americans' views on the Death Penalty. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 19-52, 1994. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02409.x
ENNS, Peter K. The public's increasing Punitiveness and its influence on Mass Incarceration in the United States. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 58, n. 4, October, pp. 857-872, 2014. 10.1111/ajps.12098
FERRAJOLI, Luigi. Derecho y Razón - Teoria del garantismo penal. Madrid: Trotta, 1995.
FINCHER, Katrina M. & TETLOCK, Philip E. Brutality under cover of ambiguity: activating, perpetuating, and deactivating covert retributivism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 41, n. 5, pp. 629-642, 2015. 10.1177/0146167215571090
GARLAND, David. Sociological perspectives on punishment. Crime and Justice. Vol. 14, pp. 115-165, 1991. 10.1086/449185
GARLAND, David. The Culture of Control - Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago: The Chicago University Press, 2001.
GAZOTO, Luís Wanderley. Justificativas do Congresso Nacional Brasileiro ao rigor penal legislativo: o estabelecimento do populismo penal no Brasil contemporâneo. Tese (Doutorado em Sociologia). Brasília: Universidade de Brasília, 2010.
GOODWIN, Geoffrey PP. & BENFORADO, Adam. Judging the Goring Ox: Retribution Directed Toward Animals. Cognitive Science, Vol. 39, n. 3, pp. 619-646, 2015. 10.1111/cogs.12175
GROMET, Dena M. Restoring the victim: emotional reactions, justice beliefs, and support for Reparation and Punishment. Critical Criminology, Vol. 20, n. 1, pp. 9-23, 2012. 10.1007/s10612-011-9146-8. 10.1007/s10612-011-9146-8
GUALA, Francesco. Reciprocity: weak or strong? What punishment experiments do (and do not) demonstrate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, v. 35, n. 1, pp. 1-15, 2012. 10.2139/ssrn.1640616
GÜNTHER, Klaus. Criminal Law, Crime and Punishment as Communication. In: SIMESTER AP; DU BOIS-PEDAIN, Antje; NEUMANN, Ulfrid. Liberal Criminal Theory: Essays for Andreas von Hirsch. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 123-139, 2014. 10.5040/9781474200868.ch-007
HAIDT, Jonathan. The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychological Review. Vol. 108, n. 4, pp. 814-834, 2001. 10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814
JACKSON, Joshua Conrad; CHOI, Virginia K.; GELFAND, Michele J. Revenge: A Multilevel Review and Synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 319-345, 2019. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103305
KUGLER, Matthew B.; FUNK, Friederike; BRAUN, Judith; GOLLWITZER, Mario; KAY, Aaron C.; DARLEY, John M. Differences in punitiveness across three cultures: a test of American Excepcionalism in Justice attitudes. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Vol. 103, n. 4, 2013.
LORD, Charles G.; ROSS, Lee; LEPPER, Mark R. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, n. 11, pp. 2098-2109, 1979. 10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
LOUGHRAN, Thomas A.; PATERNOSTER, Raymond; PIQUERO, Alex R. Individual Difference and Deterrence. In: NAGIN, Daniel S.; CULLEN, Francis T.; JONSON, Cheryl Lero (Eds). Deterrence, Choice, and Crime. Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 23. New York: Routledge, 2019.
MACHADO, Maíra Rocha; PIRES, Álvaro Penna; PARENT, Colette; MATSUDA, Fernanda Emy; FERREIRA, Carolina Cutrupi; LUZ, Yuri. Análise das justificativas para a produção de normas penais. Série Pensando o Direito, n. 32. Brasília: Ministério da Justiça / Secretaria de Assuntos Legislativos, 2010.
MANN, Heather; GARCIA-RADA, Ximena; HORNUF, Lars; TAFURT, Juan. What deters crime? Comparing the effectiveness of legal, social, and internal sanctions across countries. Frontiers in Psychology. Vol. 7, article 85, 2016. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00085.
MARQUES, Oswaldo Henrique Duek. Fundamentos da Pena. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2008.
MATRAVERS, Matt. Is Twenty-first Century Punishment Post-Desert? In: TONRY, Michael (ed.). Retributivism has a past. Has it a Future? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199798278.003.0002
MERCIER, Hugo & SPERBER, Dan. The Enigma of Reason - A New Theory of Human Understanding. London: Allen Lane, 2017. 10.4159/9780674977860
MILTENBERGER, Raymond G. Behavior Modification: Principles & Procedures. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning, 2011.
NADLER, Janice & McDonnell. Moral character, Motive, and the Psychology of Blame. Cornell Law Review. Vol. 97, n. 2, pp. 255-304, 2012.
NAGIN, Daniel S. Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century. Crime and Justice, Vol. 42, n. 1, pp. 199-263, 2013. 0192-3234/2013/4201-0004$10.00.
NISBETT, R.E.; WILSON, T.D.C. Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review. Vol. 84, n. 3, 231-259, 1977. 10.4324/9780203496398-13
PATERNOSTER, Raymond. How much do we really know about criminal deterrence? The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Vol. 100, n. 3, pp. 765-824, 2010. 0091-4169/10/10003-0765.
PALLAMOLLA, Raffaella da Porciuncula. As práticas restaurativas no Sistema Prisional Brasileiro. In: DEVITTO, Renato C.PP. & DAUFEMBACK, Valdirene. Para Além da Prisão: reflexões e propostas para uma nova política penal no Brasil. Belo Horizonte: Letramento / Casa do Direito, pp. 185-202, 2018.
PATIL, Indrajeet; DHALIWAL, Nathan A.; CUSHMAN, Fiery. Reputational and cooperative benefits of third-party compensation. PsyArXiv Preprint, 2018. 10.17605/OSF.IO/C3BSJ
PEDERSEN. Eric J.; MCAULIFFE, William H.B.; MCCULLOUGH, Michael E. The unresponsive avenger: More evidence that disinterested third parties do not punish altruistically. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, Vol. 147, n. 4, pp. 514-544, 2018. 10.1037/xge0000410.
PEDERSEN, Eric J.; MCAULIFFE, William H.B.; SHAH, Yashna; TANAKA, Hiroki; MCCULLOUGH, Michael E. When and Why Do Third Parties Punish Outside of the Lab? A Cross-Cultural Recall Study. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2019. 10.1177/1948550619884565.
PICKETT, Kate & WILKINSON, Richard. The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2010.
PIMENTA, Victor Martins. Por trás das grades: O encarceramento em massa no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Revan, 2018.
PIMENTA, Victor Martins & LEITE, Fabiana de Lima. Alternativas ao Encarceramento e Prevenção à Violência. In: DEVITTO, Renato C.PP. & DAUFEMBACK, Valdirene. Para Além da Prisão: reflexões e propostas para uma nova política penal no Brasil. Belo Horizonte: Letramento / Casa do Direito, pp.133-155, 2018.
PIRES, Álvaro. A racionalidade penal moderna, o público e os direitos humanos. Novos Estudos Cebrap, n. 68, pp. 39-60, 2004.
POGARSKY, Greg; ROCHE, Sean Patrick; PICKETT, Justin T. Offender Decision-Making in Criminology: Contributions from Behavioral Economics. Annual Review of Criminology. Vol. 1, n. 1, pp. 379-400, 2018. 10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092036
PRADO, Luiz Regis. Curso de Direito Penal Brasileiro. 12ª ed. São Paulo: RT, 2013.
PRATT, John. Penal Populism. New York: Routledge, 2007. 10.4324/9780203963678
PRATT, Travis C. & CULLEN, Francis T. Assessing Macro-Level Predictors and Theories of Crime: A Meta-Analysis. Crime and Justice. Vol. 32, pp. 373-450, 2005. 10.1086/655357
PRATT, Travis C.; CULLEN, Francis T.; BLEVINS, Kristine R.; DAIGLE, Leah E.; MADENSEN, Tamara D. The empirical status of deterrence theory: A Meta-analysis. In: Taking stock: The status of criminological theory. New York: Routledge, pp. 367-395, 2006. 10.4324/9781315130620-14
RAAIJMAKERS, Ellen A. C.; LOUGHRAN, Thomas A.; KEIJSER, Jan W. de; NIEUWBEERTA, Paul; DIRKZWAGER, Anja J. E. Exploring the Relationship between Subjectively Experienced Severity of Imprisonment and Recidivism: A Neglected Element in Testing Deterrence Theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 54, n. 1, pp. 3-28, 2016. 10.1177/0022427816660588
ROBERTS, Julian V. & de KEIJSER, Jan W. Democratising punishment: Sentencing, community views and values. Punishment & Society, Vol. 16, n. 4, pp. 474-498, 2014. 10.1177/1462474514539539
ROBERTSON, Campbell. Crime Is Down, Yet U.S. Incarceration Rates Are Still Among the Highest in the World. The New York Times, 25 de abril, 2019. Disponível em: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/us-mass-incarceration-rate.html
ROXIN, Claus. Prevention, Censure and Responsibility: the recent debate on the purposes of punishment. In: SIMESTER AP; DU BOIS-PEDAIN, Antje; NEUMANN, Ulfrid. Liberal Criminal Theory: Essays for Andreas von Hirsch. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 23-42, 2014. 10.5040/9781474200868.ch-002
RUIVO, Marcelo Almeida. O fundamento e as finalidades da pena criminal. A imprecisão das doutrinas absolutas e relativas. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Criminais. Vol. 121, ano 24, pp. 161-190, 2016.
SANTOS, Juarez Cirino dos. Direito Penal - Parte Geral. 4ª ed. Florianópolis: Conceito Editorial, 2010.
SCHECAIRA, Sérgio Salomão; & Corrêa Jr., Alceu. Teoria da Pena - Finalidades, Direito Positivo, Jurisprudência e outros estudos de ciência criminal. São Paulo: Ed. Revista dos Tribunais, 2002.
SHAMMAS, Victor L. The rise of a more Punitive State: On the attenuation of Norwegian Penal Exceptionalism in an Era of Welfare State transformation. Critical Criminology. Vol. 24, pp. 57-74, 2016. 10.1007/s10612-015-9296-1
STRANG, Heather; SHERMAN, Lawrence W., MAYO-WILSON, Evan; WOODS, Daniel; ARIEL, Barak. Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) - using face-to-face meetings of offenders and victims: effects on offender recidivism and victim satisfaction. A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 12, 2013. 10.4073/csr.2013.12
STRUCHINER, Noel & CHRISMANN, Pedro H.V. Aspectos filosóficos e psicológicos das punições: reunindo algumas peças do quebra-cabeça. Caderno CRH, Salvador, v. 25, n. spe 02, pp. 133-150, 2012. 10.1590/s0103-49792012000500010
TAHAMONT, Sarah & CHALFIN, Aaron. The Effect of Prisons on Crime. In: WOOLDREDGE, John & SMITH, Paula (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Prisons and Imprisonment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199948154.013.29
TONRY, Michael. Punishment Theory for the Twenty-first Century: The Need to Replace Retributive and Mixed Theories. In: BOTTOMS, A.E. & PEDAIN, A.B. Censure Theory. Oxford: Hart, 2017.
TONRY, Michael. An Honest Politician's Guide to Deterrence: Certainty, Severity, Celerity, and Parsimony. In: NAGIN, Daniel S.; CULLEN, Francis T.; JONSON, Cheryl Lero (Eds). Deterrence, Choice, and Crime. Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 23. New York: Routledge, 2019.
TONRY, Michael & FARRINGTON, David PP. Punishment and Crime Across Space and Time. Crime and Justice. Vol. 33, pp. 1-39, 2005. 10.1086/655361
VAN KESTEREN J. Public Attitudes and Sentencing Policies Across the World. European Journal of Criminal Policy Research, Vol. 15, pp. 25-46, 2009. 10.1007/s10610-009-9098-7
VON HIRSCH, Andreas (2017). Deserved criminal sentences. London: Hart Publishing.
WALKER, Samuel; SPOHN, Cassia; DELONE, Miriam. The Color of Justice: Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America. 6th Ed. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2017.
WEBSTER, Cheryl Marie & & DOOB, Anthony N. Searching for the Sasquatch: Deterrence of Crime through sentence severity. In: PETERSILIA, Joan & REITZ, Kevin R. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 173-195, 2012. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199730148.013.0007
XAVIER, José Roberto F. O sistema de direito criminal e a racionalidade penal moderna: ilustrações empíricas de dificuldades cognitivas em matérias de penas. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Criminais, n. 84, maio-junho, pp. 271-311, 2010.
ZHANG Y, CHEN C, GREENBERGER E, KNOWLES E. A Cross-Cultural Study of Punishment Beliefs and Decisions. Psychological Reports, Vol. 120, n.1, pp. 5-24, 2017. 10.1177/0033294116679654
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The submission of articles for publication in the Law, State, and Society Journal(Revista Direito, Estado e Sociedade) implies the agreement of the authors with the following terms:
1. The author(s) authorize the publication of the text in an issue of the journal;
2. The author(s) assure that the submitted text is original and unpublished and that it is not under evaluation process in other journals;
3. The author(s) assume full responsibility for the opinions, ideas, and concepts sustained in the texts;
4. The author(s) grant the editors the right to make textual adjustments and adjustments to the journal's publication standards;
5. Total or partial reproduction of the articles is allowed, as long as the source is explicitly cited.
