Art. 154. If mental insanity occurs during the execution of the sentence, the provisions of article 682 shall be observed.
Mental illness in execution
Supervenience of mental illness in the execution: Article 41 of the CP provides that the convict who supervenes mental illness must be taken to a hospital for custody and psychiatric treatment or, failing that, to another suitable establishment. Article 183 of the LEP establishes that, when, during the execution of the custodial sentence, a mental illness or mental health disorder occurs, the judge, ex officio, at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office or the administrative authority, may determine the replacement of the penalty as a security measure.
Term of duration of the security measure: In the case of a security measure applied to replace the sentence (Article 183), its duration cannot exceed the time remaining to serve the sentence. As highlighted by Minister Maria Thereza de Assis Moura, “extrapolated the period for serving the custodial sentence, the State’s intervention in the criminal sphere must cease, configuring the maintenance of the security measure as an illegal constraint, regardless of the cessation of the patient’s dangerousness. It will be up to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, if it deems it necessary, due to the non-stopping of the agent’s dangerousness, provided that it is strictly necessary for the protection of this or the company, seek its interdiction before the civil court, based on the provisions of articles 1,767 et seq. of the Civil Code. Otherwise, there is no alternative other than their immediate release” ( Minister Maria Thereza de Assis Moura – STJ – HC 373405/SP ).
Impossibility of complying with a security measure in a common prison: An individual subject to the security measure of internment in a custody hospital and psychiatric treatment will not be able to comply with it in a common prison, even if under the justification of lack of vacancies or lack of capacity. state resources. This is because the patient cannot be subjected to a more serious situation than that defined in court ( HC 231.124-SP, Reporting Min. Laurita Vaz, judged on 4/23/2013 – Newsletter No. 0522 ).