A (IN)CONSTITUCIONALIDADE DO REGIME DISCIPLINAR DIFERENCIADO

Abstract

This study analyzes the (in)constitutionality of the Differentiated Disciplinary Regime (RDD), focusing on its legal foundations, practical implications, and compatibility with constitutional principles and international human rights treaties. Instituted by Law No. 10,792/2003 and amended by Law No. 13,964/2019 (Anti Crime Package), the RDD was designed to curb the actions of leaders of criminal organizations by imposing severe isolation and extreme restrictions on communication and social interaction. The study addressed the legal criteria for applying the RDD, its characteristics, and the subjectivity in judicial decisions that allow arbitrary interpretations. Favorable arguments highlight its effectiveness in curbing organized crime, while critics point to violations of the principles of humanity, legality, and individualized sentencing, as established in Article 5 of the Federal Constitution. The research also compared the RDD to international norms, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Mandela Rules, concluding that its practices frequently contravene global standards for the treatment of prisoners. Based on doctrine and jurisprudence, it was found that the regime not only exacerbates the humanitarian crisis in the prison system but also undermines the resocialization of inmates. It is concluded that the RDD, in its current form, presents significant ethical and legal challenges, requiring reforms to balance public security and respect for fundamental rights. The balance between punishment and human dignity is essential to strengthen the Democratic Rule of Law.