The Public Prosecutor's Office of Paraná (MPPR) requested, on Monday, the 17th, that the right to house arrest be denied to former prison police officer Jorge Guaranho. Sentenced to 20 years in prison in a closed regime, he had his sentence relaxed 24 hours after leaving the Jury Court in Curitiba.
The request was addressed to the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Justice of Paraná. Guaranho shot dead municipal guard and PT treasurer Marcelo Arruda in July 2022. The victim was celebrating his 50th birthday and had his party invaded.
On Thursday, the 13th, the defendant was convicted of committing double homicide, qualified by a futile motive (political differences) and by common danger (due to the fact that the accused shot the victim in a place with other people, putting them at risk).
Degree of latent bellicosity
In the request, the MPPR highlights “the evidence of the high degree of latent belligerence of the patient, expressed in an inescapable way given the gravity of the crime committed”, stating that house arrest cannot be justified, “especially when the violence perpetrated is directly related to personal/behavioral aspects that do not change overnight”.
The Public Prosecutor's Office also recalls the thesis recently established by the Federal Supreme Court (theme 1.068), according to which “the sovereignty of the verdicts of the Jury Court authorizes the immediate execution of the sentence imposed by the jury, regardless of the total sentence applied”.
Excerpts from the defendant's conviction are also cited: “It is known that house arrest as a precaution differs from house arrest for serving a sentence. […] Once the defendant has been convicted by the Jury Court, there is no remaining precaution […], and the sentence must be immediately executed.”
According to the MP, this is why the judge who sentenced Guaranho understood that the case should be served in a closed regime, explicitly stating in the sentence that the accused should “be taken to the respective prison establishment for the immediate start of serving the sentence”.
Regarding the allegation of the convicted person's poor health, the MPPR argues that “it is not clear that the patient is extremely weak (as can be seen from the videos broadcast in the media that captured his entry and/or exit from the court, as well as the video of his interrogation in the courtroom) or unable to receive care in the prison establishment”.
According to the report provided by Depen, mentions the MPPR, it appears that the prisoner “was being medicated and monitored by a health professional while he remained confined”.
(With information from the press office)
It is unacceptable for a judge to defend the house arrest of a habitual murderer, who acted with full mental capacity and enjoys exemplary health, capable of being tried for hours without any special need, which he does not have in prison.
#chainforguaranho
As far as I know, the decision of the Sentencing Council is sovereign. I have never seen a similar case. Or is this privilege exclusive to it?