Inequality in Brazilian justice: A system that protects the powerful?

The situation facing the Brazilian judicial system has highlighted deep discrepancies in the application of the law, especially regarding the sentences imposed on political figures and ordinary citizens. In a context where justice should be blind, it seems that in Brazil, the blindfolded eyes of the goddess of Justice are increasingly open for some and completely closed for others. This phenomenon was recently evidenced in the case of Fátima de Tubarão, who, after inciting violence against the Democratic Rule of Law, received a sentence that, while severe, does not seem to reflect the gravity of her crime compared to others convicted of much more harmful offenses. Fátima de Tubarão and her group of invaders, who acted against the democratic pillars of the country, are being tried amid a climate of growing political polarization. The conviction by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) reflects not only an attempt to enact justice but also the need to send a pedagogical message to society about the consequences of attacking democracy. However, it is crucial to question whether this conviction is sufficient or if, in reality, selective justice is being applied. The outrage largely arises from the discrepancy between the sentences imposed on Tubarão and those given to others convicted in corruption cases that have had a much more significant impact on the economy and the legitimacy of the political system. For example, the mensalão case, which involved figures like José Dirceu, who was sentenced to over ten years in prison, and Valdemar Costa Neto, who received a sentence of seven years and ten months, highlights an inequality in the treatment of crimes. These figures, like many others in the political sphere, have faced consequences that seem to be considered more severe than the actions of those perpetrating acts of civil disobedience. It is this difference in punishment that leads to questioning the integrity of the judicial apparatus. When crimes of corruption and collusion, which have drained public resources and undermined trust in institutions, receive more tepid responses than an assault on a symbol of democratic power, doubts arise about the true nature of justice in Brazil. The idea that justice should be equal for all becomes a debated principle in a country where the influence of personal connections and economic power seems to weigh more than the crime itself. As cases involving political figures continue to splash into the public arena, it becomes evident that the judicial system faces a dilemma: to apply the law equitably or to yield to the pressure of a political context that seeks to protect the powerful. This dilemma not only translates into distrust towards the STF but also erodes citizens' faith in a system that should provide equal opportunities under the law. The condition of "friendly immunity" that seems to be enjoyed by a part of the political spectrum poses a significant risk to democracy. The disproportion in Tubarão's sentencing compared to other convicted political leaders, such as Lula and Fernando Collor, reinforces the perception that justice is not uniform. In a country that has suffered from corruption and still grapples with the aftermath of a dark past, this perception becomes a threat to the democratic future. The episode of January 8, 2023, when the statue symbolizing justice was vandalized, serves as a metaphor for a situation in which justice is not only manipulated by those who hold power but also becomes a bastion of social and political divisions. The phrase "the process has no cover" reminds us that reality goes beyond the letter of the law, and that its application depends on those who administer it. In Brazil, the protection of the powerful seems to be institutionalized, while ordinary citizens bear the weight of a justice that does not forgive. Brazilian society finds itself at a critical juncture that demands profound reflection on the values of justice and equity. The need for a judicial system that punishes everyone equally has never been more urgent. If this disparity is not addressed, the risk of generating greater division and distrust in institutions will increase, jeopardizing social cohesion and democratic stability. In conclusion, justice in Brazil faces a formidable challenge. The scales that should balance equality before the law seem tilted to one side, and it is essential that judicial bodies commit to restoring public trust. The fight for truly blind justice, which does not distinguish between the powerful and ordinary citizens, is a path we must walk together in search of a future where democracy and the rule of law are truly unbreakable.