O julgamento conjunto da ADO nº 26 e do MI 4733:: Uma análise sobre sua coerência e integridade com o ordenamento jurídico brasileiro

Palavras-chave: constitucionalidade; omissão legislativa; interpretação; direito penal Keywords: constitutionality; legislative omission; interpretation; criminal law The purpose of this article is to analyze the joint judgment of ADO 26 and MI 4833, which extended the classification provided for in Law 7.716 / 89 to crimes resulting from discrimination of race, color, ethnicity, religion or national origin, discrimination by sexual orientation or gender identity, as a consequence of the recognition of unconstitutional omission by the National Congress in legislating on the matter. The problem is related to the possible existence of a decision inconsistency with the legal propositions extracted from legal-penal dogmatics. The adopted methodology consists of the reconstruction of the rationality of the judicial decision, with subsequent verification of its compatibility with the legal-penal dogmatics. As a result, focusing on the judicial decision, after analyzing the legal argument developed, it was possible to verify that it does not hold up when rationally confronted, given that a judicial review of the subject for counter-majoritarian protection of individual rights is not so much justified because the law, to some extent, has already protected the interests of the minority, and because it comes up against the principle of strict legality to criminalize conducts, which includes, in a broad sense, the prohibition of analogy in malam partem and extensive interpretation.  O presente artigo tem por objetivo analisar o julgamento conjunto da ADO 26 e do MI 4833, que estendeu a tipificação prevista na Lei 7.716/89 para os crimes resultantes de discriminação ou preconceito de raça, cor, etnia religião ou procedência nacional, à discriminação por orientação sexual ou identidade de gênero, como consequência do reconhecimento da omissão inconstitucional do Congresso Nacional em legislar sobre a matéria. A problemática se relaciona com a possível existência de uma incoerência decisória com as proposições jurídicas extraídas da dogmática jurídico-penal. A metodologia adequada foi a análise de decisão judicial, de modo a reconstruir a racionalidade formada com a decisão judicial, para depois, em um juízo de pertinência, verificar sua compatibilidade com a dogmática jurídico-penal, o que converge, por assim ser, com os objetivos gerais do presente. Como resultado, tendo como enfoque a decisão judicial, após análise individual dos votos proferidos e da argumentação jurídica desenvolvida, foi possível verificar que aquela não se compatibilizou com a racionalidade que o direito positivo, totalidade do direito do penal, expressa, ante a patente violação dos princípios da legalidade, da vedação de analogia in malam partem e da interpretação extensiva em matéria penal.

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear un derstanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5–7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8–11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world’s most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepre sented in biodiversity databases.13–15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may elim inate pieces of the Amazon’s biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological com munities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple or ganism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region’s vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most ne glected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lostinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear understanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5,6,7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8,9,10,11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world's most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepresented in biodiversity databases.13,14,15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may eliminate pieces of the Amazon's biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological communities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple organism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region's vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most neglected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lost