The (im)possibility of offering the conditional suspension of procedure in criminal offenses prosecuted by private initiative

Abstract

The current paper seeks to briefly discuss the possibility of offering the conditional suspension of procedure in criminal offenses prosecuted by private initiative. Bearing in mind that negotiation areas are a growing reality in the criminal justice administration system, there is a need for constant evaluation, harmonization and study of criminal and criminal procedural institutes (of essentially procedural or mixed nature), especially due to the clear tension between the exercise of accusatory and punitive power and the possibility of transactioning fundamental rights such as due process of law, adversarial proceedings, broad defense and presumption of innocence, factors that are more delicate in cases of offenses prosecuted by private initiative, in which the private individual assumes the role of criminal prosecutor with a legal nature that is different from the constitutionally determined public prosecutor. Analyzing the Law nº 9.099/95, specifically in its article 89 - which regulates the conditional suspension of procedure “SUSPRO” -, it can be seen that the rule mentions only the public prosecution, which, at first sight, can be interpreted as if the consensual legal-procedure could only be offered by the Public Prosecutor's Office. However, once the premisses have been laid out and a systematic reasoning of the law and the consensual procedure system has been carried out, through bibliographical and jurisprudential research, the conclusion obtained is that there is no obstacle that the “SUSPRO” can be negotiated in the context of criminal offenses prosecuted by private initiative, as a matter of fact, being a more reasonable and logical interpretation of the premises that guided the creation not only of the institute itself, but the entire consensual logic that grows inside the brazilian criminal procedure.