O homicídio praticado por motorista embriagado na direção de veículo automotor: culpa consciente ou dolo eventual?

Abstract

Due to the high rates of traffic accidents and deaths in Brazil, a movement began in the media and in society itself, charging more rigid punishments for drivers who insist on the dangerous practice of drunk driving. From this, prosecutors and judges have come to see in certain crimes of this nature the existence of possible fraud in the conduct of the agent, which would imply in their accountability under the Criminal Code. This practice has spread out and raised strong discussion in doctrine and jurisprudence whether such crimes should be applied to eventual intentionality or conscious guilt. In the face of these facts, the objective of the work was to analyze if in the conduct of the agent that, drunk, drives and kills someone in the traffic, there is eventual deceit or conscious guilt. For that, the subjective elements of the criminal type, deceit and guilt were explained, as well as the distinction of institutes of eventual deceit and conscious guilt. The historical evolution of the traffic rules was also explored, especially in the number of homicides practiced in the direction of automotive vehicles, according to the Brazilian Traffic Code. The typical homicide figures provided for in the Penal Code will also be considered. Finally, we analyze the statistics of death in traffic, the positioning of doctrine and jurisprudence on the problem and the practical implications of the responsibility of the agent for guilty or criminal crime. The methodology of the present research will use as deductive method of approach, starting from a general premise for a specific premise. The method of procedure will be the bibliographic, legal and historical. And the research technique is the indirect documentary. The study concludes that the majority doctrine is positioned in the sense that in crimes of this type should be imputed to conscious guilt, however, the possibility of identifying possible fraud is not rejected. The higher courts advocate a detailed analysis of the actual case to determine whether there is deception in the agent's conduct, but drunkenness alone is not capable of configuring this subjective element.