O limite do uso de algemas

uma análise da Súmula Vinculante n. 11

Abstract

handcuffs in police and procedural actions, from the perspective of judicial activism, with the aim of answering the following question: can the decision of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) in issuing this Súmula be considered an act of judicial activism? To achieve this, the study adopts a formalist approach, investigating the content, precedents, and political context that influenced its formulation. By imposing limits on the use of handcuffs, the Súmula reflects concerns about the protection of human dignity and the prevention of abuses of authority but also raises questions about judicial intervention in matters typically reserved for the Executive and Legislative branches, such as public security. Based on qualitative and inductive research, the study employs a bibliographic exploration of the concept and characteristics of judicial activism, as well as a case study of Habeas Corpus 91.952-9/SP and 89.429/RO, which are precedent decisions of the STF on the subject. The article concludes that the deliberation of Súmula Vinculante 11 represented an expansive act of the powers granted to the STF, as it not only addressed the use of handcuffs in jury trials but also extended to any police or procedural actions. Furthermore, the article argues that through the Súmula, the STF sought to deliberately resolve a legislative gap, but this resolution did not comply with the criteria set forth in Article 103-A of the Federal Constitution — namely, “repeated decisions” and “controversy among judicial bodies.”