Trata-se de pagamento de benefício para o qual o preso contribuiu com seu trabalho enquanto estava em liberdade, sendo falso falar em contribuinte não preso ou “vagabundo não contribuinte”
]Mitos
e verdades sobre o "bolsa bandido"
Trata-se
de pagamento de benefício para o qual o preso contribuiu com seu trabalho
enquanto estava em liberdade, sendo falso falar em contribuinte não preso ou
“vagabundo não contribuinte”
bolsa
bandido auxílio reclusão verdades
Mitos
e verdades sobre auxílio-reclusão (Imagem: Pragmatismo Político)
Maíra
Cardoso Zapater e Maria Rosa Franca Roque, Ponte
De
tempos em tempos, circulam nas redes sociais mensagens sarcásticas e revoltosas
a respeito do que os remetentes chamam de “bolsa-bandido”. Referem-se, na
verdade, a um benefício previdenciário chamado auxílio-reclusão. Poderiam ser
apenas protestos pueris e desinformados, não fossem os efeitos deletérios
causados pela disseminação de informações incorretas, a exemplo da Proposta de
Emenda Constitucional 304, proposta em 2013, que tem por objetivo extinguir o
auxílio-reclusão, convertendo-o em benefício das vítimas de crimes. Segundo a
justificativa da PEC, o pagamento do benefício aos familiares de presos seria
uma política assistencialista e demagógica, e ainda incentivadora da prática de
crimes para obtenção do pagamento. A ideia, cheia de incorreções, vem sendo
fomentada, reproduzida e perpetuada, fortalecendo preconceitos tão inúteis
quanto prejudiciais a efetivas transformações sociais.
Assim,
nossa intenção com este breve artigo é apresentar, de forma crítica, dados
oficiais a respeito do auxílio-reclusão, em comparação com estudo recente
desenvolvido pela Fundação Getúlio Vargas sobre a população carcerária, para
assim corrigir informações equivocadas e colocar nossa análise sobre os dados,
a fim de permitir ao leitor formar sua própria opinião a respeito do
auxílio-reclusão, com base em dados reais e corretos.
O
que é mito e o que é verdade sobre o auxílio-reclusão?
Mito:
O auxílio-reclusão é assistência social para bandido. O cidadão de bem fica
obrigado a sustentar família de marginal.
Verdade:
O auxílio-reclusão é um benefício previdenciário ao qual têm direito familiares
de cidadão contribuinte que se encontra preso. O princípio condutor é o da
proteção à família já que, estando o segurado recluso e impedido de trabalhar,
a família não pode também ser punida deixando de receber o benefício para o
qual contribuiu a pessoa que se encontra momentaneamente encarcerada.
O
sistema previdenciário brasileiro (responsável pelos benefícios decorrentes de
risco social, dentre os quais se elencam todas as aposentadorias,
auxílio-doença, pensão por acidente do trabalho, além do próprio
auxílio-reclusão) é financiado pelas empresas, pelos empregados e pelo Estado,
pois o legislador constituinte atribuiu à sociedade em geral o financiamento da
seguridade social, conforme previsto no artigo 195 da Constituição Federal.
O
benefício é pago com orçamento da Previdência Social, que é obtido através das
contribuições dos filiados ao INSS. Ou seja, quem paga o auxílio-reclusão são
os contribuintes do INSS e não todos os brasileiros, através de tributos.
Além
disso, o valor do auxílio-reclusão varia de acordo com as contribuições de cada
segurado, o que implica dizer que somente os familiares de pessoa presa que
tenha contribuído para a Previdência Social (seja por ter carteira assinada ou
por ter contribuído como autônomo) terão direito a receber o auxílio.
Portanto,
trata-se de pagamento de benefício para o qual o preso contribuiu com seu
trabalho enquanto se encontrava em liberdade, não havendo que se falar em
contribuinte não preso sustentando “vagabundo não contribuinte”.
Mito:
O auxílio-reclusão incentiva o crime porque os criminosos ficam reclusos, sem
precisar se sustentar nem trabalhar, e ainda conseguem algum dinheiro para sua
família.
Verdade:
As condições carcerárias do Brasil são notoriamente insalubres. As celas estão
em média 88% acima de sua capacidade. Segundo pesquisa recente realizada pela
FGV, 41,6% dos presos entrevistados declararam não haver água suficiente para
beber, e cerca de 28% dos presos informam que em alguma ocasião lhes foi
roubado algum objeto pessoal, taxa de roubo similar a da população
não-carcerária da região pesquisada. Portanto, não se trata de um bom negócio
trocar a vida em liberdade para viver nas condições desumanas do cárcere, só
por saber que (muito eventualmente) a família será ‘sustentada por uns
trocados’.
Mito:
As famílias dos presos se beneficiam, enquanto as das vítimas não têm direito a
nada.
Verdade:
Na prática, apesar da previsão legal, raramente as famílias conseguem usufruir
do auxílio-reclusão. Na maioria das vezes, o benefício é concedido em função da
mulher contribuinte que se encontra encarcerada, provavelmente porque é para
seus filhos, cuja dependência econômica é presumida. No caso de homens presos,
as mães, por exemplo, precisam comprovar a dependência econômica por meio de
documentos totalmente incompatíveis com a realidade socioeconômica da população
carcerária, o que resulta no índice de apenas 2% da população carcerária
masculina justificar a percepção do auxílio. Quanto aos familiares de vítimas
de crimes fatais, estes têm direito a pensão por morte; em caso de lesão
incapacitante, a aposentadoria por invalidez, que são benefícios já previstos
em lei e que esvaziam a PEC 304/2013.
Mito:
Se a PEC 304/2013 for aprovada, a extinção do auxílio-reclusão será algo
positivo, pois deixará de estimular a prática de crime e a criminalidade será
reduzida.
Verdade:
Na exposição de motivos da PEC em questão, encontra-se o seguinte trecho:
“Ainda que a família do criminoso na maior parte dos casos não tenha influência
para que ele cometa o crime, acaba se beneficiando da prática de atos
criminosos que envolvam roubo, pois a renda é revertida também em favor da
família. Ademais, o fato do criminoso saber que sua família não ficará ao total
desamparo se ele for recolhido à prisão, pode facilitar sua decisão em cometer
um crime”.
Ninguém
escolhe praticar ou não crime em função do amparo financeiro que a família terá
enquanto perdurar a pena de prisão, mesmo porque, como já mencionado, a
concessão do auxílio-reclusão não é regra na realidade do sistema prisional.
Ainda, grande parte das pessoas presas hoje (48%) já teve um parente preso,
segundo demonstrado pela Pesquisa da FGV, e possivelmente teve seu direito ao
auxílio-reclusão negado, por falta de cumprimento dos rigorosos requisitos
legais. Tem mais lógica pensar que a piora da condição social pode contribuir
para a prática de crime do que o inverso. Além disso, segundo dados da própria
Previdência Social, os percentuais de presos que recebem o auxílio se
mantiveram estáveis (em torno de 4% entre 2010 e 2012), diferentemente da
quantidade de pessoas presas, que aumenta exponencialmente.
A
solução para a redução da criminalidade, definitivamente, não está atrelada à
luta pela extinção dos (já escassos) benefícios aos quais os presos, ao menos
formalmente, fazem jus. Muitos mitos precisam ser derrubados, e os que se referem
ao auxílio-reclusão são apenas uma parte do enorme rol de lendas que são
construídas e atreladas à imagem o “inimigo preso”, aquele que é visto como um
“ consumidor e
contribuinte falho
Myths and truths about the "Bandit Bag"
This is the benefit payment to which the offender contributed their work while enjoying freedom, and false speaking taxpayer not stuck or "no taxpayer bum"
] Myths and truths about the "Bandit Bag"
This is the benefit payment to which the offender contributed their work while enjoying freedom, and false speaking taxpayer not stuck or "no taxpayer bum"
bag bandit aid seclusion truths
Myths and truths about aid-seclusion (Image: Political Pragmatism)
Maira Cardoso Zapater and Maria Rosa Franca Roque, Bridge
From time to time, circulating on social networks sarcastic and rebellious messages about what the senders call "bag-bandit". Refer, in fact, a social security benefit called aid-seclusion. Could be just childish and uninformed protests that would have deleterious effects caused by the spread of incorrect information, such as the Proposed Constitutional Amendment 304, proposed in 2013, which aims to extinguish the aid-seclusion, converting it to benefit victims crimes. According to the justification of the PEC, the payment of benefits to prisoners of family welfare and would be a demagogic political, and even supportive of crimes for obtaining payment. The idea, full of inaccuracies, has been promoted, reproduced and perpetuated, strengthening prejudices as useless as harmful to effective social change.
Thus, our intention with this brief article is to critically official data on the aid-seclusion, compared to recent study by the Getulio Vargas Foundation on the prison population, so as to correct misinformation and put our analysis of the data in order to enable the reader to form his own opinion on the aid-seclusion, based on actual and correct data.
What is myth and what is true of the aid-seclusion?
Myth: The aid-seclusion is social assistance for bandit. The good citizen is required to sustain family marginal.
Truth: The aid-seclusion is a social security benefit to which they are familiar right to taxpayer citizen who has been detained. The guiding principle is the protection of the family since, with the insured reclusive and unable to work, the family can not also be punished leaving to receive the benefit for which contributed the person who is briefly imprisoned.
The Brazilian social security system (responsible for the benefits of social risk, among which we list all pensions, sick pay, pension for accidents at work, beyond the aid itself-seclusion) is funded by business, employees and the state, because the constituent legislature attaches to the society in general the financing of social security as provided for in Article 195 of the Constitution.
The benefit is payable to the Social Security budget, which is obtained through the contributions of members to the INSS. That is, who pays the aid-seclusion are taxpayers INSS and not all Brazilians, through taxes.
In addition, the value of the aid-seclusion varies according to the contributions of each insured, which implies that only the person's family prey that has contributed to Social Security (either by a formal contract or to have contributed as standalone) are entitled to receive the aid.
Therefore, it is benefit payment to which the offender has contributed his work while he was at liberty, there is no need to talk about taxpayer not stuck holding "no taxpayer bum".
Myth: The aid-seclusion encourages crime because criminals are prisoners without work or support themselves, and still manage some money for his family.
Truth: Prison conditions in Brazil are notoriously unhealthy. The cells are on average 88% above capacity. According to a recent survey conducted by FGV, 41.6% of prisoners interviewed declared there is not enough water to drink, and about 28% of prisoners report that at some time they were robbed of a personal object, similar theft rate of non-population prison of the area surveyed. Therefore, it is not a good deal to exchange life in freedom to live in inhuman conditions in the prison, only to learn that (very possibly) the family will be 'supported by some change'.
Myth: The families of the prisoners benefit, while the victims are not entitled to anything.
Truth: In practice, despite the legal provision, rarely families can take advantage of the aid-seclusion. Most of the time, the benefit is granted on the basis of taxpayer woman who is incarcerated, probably because it is for their children, whose economic dependence is assumed. In the case of arrested men, mothers, for example, must prove economic dependence through totally incompatible documents with the economic reality of the prison population, resulting in only 2% rate of male prison population justify the perception of the aid. As for the families of victims of fatal crimes, they are entitled to death benefits; in the event of disabling injury, disability retirement, benefits that are already established in law and emptying the PEC 304/2013.
Myth: If the PEC 304/2013 is approved, the extinction of reclusion-aid will be something positive, as will certainly encourage the practice of crime and crime will be reduced.
Truth: In the explanatory memorandum of the PEC in question is the following passage: "Although the criminal's family in most cases has no influence for him to make the crime, ends up benefiting the practice of criminal acts involving theft, because the income is also reversed in favor of the family. Moreover, the fact that the criminal know that your family will not be the utter helplessness if it is taken to prison, can facilitate your decision to commit a crime. "
No one chooses to do or not a crime due to the financial support that the family will have as long as the prison sentence, if only because, as already mentioned, aid award-incarceration is not the rule in the reality of the prison system. Still, most of the people arrested today (48%) already had a prisoner relative, as demonstrated by the search FGV, and possibly had his right to aid-seclusion denied for lack of compliance with the strict legal requirements. Is more logical to think that the worsening social conditions can contribute to the commission of a crime than the reverse. Moreover, according to data from the Social Security, the percentage of prisoners who receive the aid remained stable (around 4% between 2010 and 2012), unlike the number of prisoners, which increases exponentially.
The solution to reducing crime, definitely, is not linked to the struggle for extinction of the (scarce) benefits to which the prisoners, at least formally, they are eligible. Many myths need to be torn down, and those relating to the aid-seclusion are only part of the huge list of legends that are built and linked to image the "stuck enemy", who is seen as a "flawed econtribuinte consumer
contribuinte falho
Myths and truths about the "Bandit Bag"
This is the benefit payment to which the offender contributed their work while enjoying freedom, and false speaking taxpayer not stuck or "no taxpayer bum"
] Myths and truths about the "Bandit Bag"
This is the benefit payment to which the offender contributed their work while enjoying freedom, and false speaking taxpayer not stuck or "no taxpayer bum"
bag bandit aid seclusion truths
Myths and truths about aid-seclusion (Image: Political Pragmatism)
Maira Cardoso Zapater and Maria Rosa Franca Roque, Bridge
From time to time, circulating on social networks sarcastic and rebellious messages about what the senders call "bag-bandit". Refer, in fact, a social security benefit called aid-seclusion. Could be just childish and uninformed protests that would have deleterious effects caused by the spread of incorrect information, such as the Proposed Constitutional Amendment 304, proposed in 2013, which aims to extinguish the aid-seclusion, converting it to benefit victims crimes. According to the justification of the PEC, the payment of benefits to prisoners of family welfare and would be a demagogic political, and even supportive of crimes for obtaining payment. The idea, full of inaccuracies, has been promoted, reproduced and perpetuated, strengthening prejudices as useless as harmful to effective social change.
Thus, our intention with this brief article is to critically official data on the aid-seclusion, compared to recent study by the Getulio Vargas Foundation on the prison population, so as to correct misinformation and put our analysis of the data in order to enable the reader to form his own opinion on the aid-seclusion, based on actual and correct data.
What is myth and what is true of the aid-seclusion?
Myth: The aid-seclusion is social assistance for bandit. The good citizen is required to sustain family marginal.
Truth: The aid-seclusion is a social security benefit to which they are familiar right to taxpayer citizen who has been detained. The guiding principle is the protection of the family since, with the insured reclusive and unable to work, the family can not also be punished leaving to receive the benefit for which contributed the person who is briefly imprisoned.
The Brazilian social security system (responsible for the benefits of social risk, among which we list all pensions, sick pay, pension for accidents at work, beyond the aid itself-seclusion) is funded by business, employees and the state, because the constituent legislature attaches to the society in general the financing of social security as provided for in Article 195 of the Constitution.
The benefit is payable to the Social Security budget, which is obtained through the contributions of members to the INSS. That is, who pays the aid-seclusion are taxpayers INSS and not all Brazilians, through taxes.
In addition, the value of the aid-seclusion varies according to the contributions of each insured, which implies that only the person's family prey that has contributed to Social Security (either by a formal contract or to have contributed as standalone) are entitled to receive the aid.
Therefore, it is benefit payment to which the offender has contributed his work while he was at liberty, there is no need to talk about taxpayer not stuck holding "no taxpayer bum".
Myth: The aid-seclusion encourages crime because criminals are prisoners without work or support themselves, and still manage some money for his family.
Truth: Prison conditions in Brazil are notoriously unhealthy. The cells are on average 88% above capacity. According to a recent survey conducted by FGV, 41.6% of prisoners interviewed declared there is not enough water to drink, and about 28% of prisoners report that at some time they were robbed of a personal object, similar theft rate of non-population prison of the area surveyed. Therefore, it is not a good deal to exchange life in freedom to live in inhuman conditions in the prison, only to learn that (very possibly) the family will be 'supported by some change'.
Myth: The families of the prisoners benefit, while the victims are not entitled to anything.
Truth: In practice, despite the legal provision, rarely families can take advantage of the aid-seclusion. Most of the time, the benefit is granted on the basis of taxpayer woman who is incarcerated, probably because it is for their children, whose economic dependence is assumed. In the case of arrested men, mothers, for example, must prove economic dependence through totally incompatible documents with the economic reality of the prison population, resulting in only 2% rate of male prison population justify the perception of the aid. As for the families of victims of fatal crimes, they are entitled to death benefits; in the event of disabling injury, disability retirement, benefits that are already established in law and emptying the PEC 304/2013.
Myth: If the PEC 304/2013 is approved, the extinction of reclusion-aid will be something positive, as will certainly encourage the practice of crime and crime will be reduced.
Truth: In the explanatory memorandum of the PEC in question is the following passage: "Although the criminal's family in most cases has no influence for him to make the crime, ends up benefiting the practice of criminal acts involving theft, because the income is also reversed in favor of the family. Moreover, the fact that the criminal know that your family will not be the utter helplessness if it is taken to prison, can facilitate your decision to commit a crime. "
No one chooses to do or not a crime due to the financial support that the family will have as long as the prison sentence, if only because, as already mentioned, aid award-incarceration is not the rule in the reality of the prison system. Still, most of the people arrested today (48%) already had a prisoner relative, as demonstrated by the search FGV, and possibly had his right to aid-seclusion denied for lack of compliance with the strict legal requirements. Is more logical to think that the worsening social conditions can contribute to the commission of a crime than the reverse. Moreover, according to data from the Social Security, the percentage of prisoners who receive the aid remained stable (around 4% between 2010 and 2012), unlike the number of prisoners, which increases exponentially.
The solution to reducing crime, definitely, is not linked to the struggle for extinction of the (scarce) benefits to which the prisoners, at least formally, they are eligible. Many myths need to be torn down, and those relating to the aid-seclusion are only part of the huge list of legends that are built and linked to image the "stuck enemy", who is seen as a "flawed econtribuinte consumer
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário