A (in)constitucionalidade do regime integralmente fechado da prisão do devedor de alimentos: uma análise do habeas corpus 82.959-7 e extensão interpretativa acerca da inconstitucionalidade do art. 1o, §2o da lei 8.072/90 dentro da ótica da prisão do devedor de alimentos.

Abstract

The present work seeks to apply the understanding given in Habeas Corpus 82.959-7, which declared unconstitutional the Heinous Crimes Act that determined the fulfillment of a prison sentence in entirely closed conditions, to the case of the maintenance debtor when applying coercive measures aimed at forcing compliance with the maintenance obligation. This is on account of the fact that the legislator, likewise, determined closed conditions for civil imprisonment in this case. This work intends to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the respective provision established by the legislator regarding the obligation of closed prison conditions to any decision that strives for the imprisonment of the maintenance debtor. In addition, it highlights the consequent inability for judges to determine a fair verdict, as well as the connection between areas of law that involve the subject. This work was carried out using the definition and conceptualization of maintenance to deal with the normative construction of imprisonment for the maintenance debtor, in addition to the analysis of the aforementioned Habeas Corpus, where it was sought to point out the main arguments related to the theme of the maintenance debtor with the aim of confirming the research hypothesis. The result was that these two cases represent different forms of imprisonment, with different purposes and consequences in terms of constitutional guarantees. In conclusion, the hypothesis was not confirmed, as the determination of imprisonment is constitutional when considering the possibility of applying measures other than imprisonment.