Judicial interpretation in crisis

how Criminal Law challenges reshape legal hermeneutics

Abstract

The aim of this article is to investigate and understand the reasons and motivations behind the interpretive shift in the application of criminal law, specifically concerning the Supreme Federal Court's (STF) judgment in HC n. 83.926/RJ. This ruling relaxed the minimum sentence requirement for conditional process suspension, extending it to offenses with penalties exceeding one year if a fine alternative exists. In addition to reflecting on its implications in the most recent legislation. The analysis will be conducted through the lens of two hermeneutic challenges: subjectivity, which leads to biased decisions influenced by social patterns of inclusion and exclusion—as seen in white-collar crimes—and the excessive number of criminal laws, which generates legal uncertainty. The STF's decision is examined as either a potential benefit for economic crimes, often associated with higher-income groups, or as a strategy to alleviate the overburdened penal system. Through hermeneutic studies, doctrinal analysis, and a case study, the article concludes that hermeneutics is not neutral; it can both safeguard rights and reinforce selectivity. The STF's reinterpretation illustrates the tension between strict legality and the search for judicial alternatives, highlighting the critical need for balance in the face of uncontrolled legislative expansion.