Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
The Sentence About Cockfighting in São Luís Determines R$ 30 Thousand Per Defendant for Collective Moral Damages, Daily Fine of R$ 1 Thousand in Case of Recidivism, Sending of Official Letters to Environmental Agencies and Allocation of Funds to the State Fund for Diffuse Rights, Reinforcing Solidary Responsibility and the Constitutional Ban on Cruelty to Animals
Judge Douglas Martins, from the Diffuse and Collective Interests Court of São Luís, condemned an association of breeders and two defendants for organizing cockfights in the Araçagy neighborhood. Each convicted party must pay R$ 30 thousand for collective moral damages, as well as a daily fine of R$ 1 thousand for any new act that characterizes promoting, organizing, participating, or advocating the practice. The amounts will go to the State Fund for Diffuse Rights.
According to Conjur, the Public Ministry’s action pointed out environmental damage and cruelty towards animals, describing structured events that gathered as many as 188 birds, many of them injured, and a logistics aimed at fights. For the judge, the Constitution (art. 225) prohibits practices that subject animals to cruelty, and civil environmental liability is objective, based on the theory of full risk (Law 6.938/81).
Decision and Penalties Applied
The sentence acknowledges that the defendants promoted and facilitated cockfighting with a professional structure, setting R$ 30 thousand per defendant for collective moral damage.
-
The new Civil Code could revolutionize marriages in Brazil with “express divorce” and changes that could exclude spouses from inheritance.
-
Banco do Brasil sues famous influencer for million-dollar debt and intensifies debate on delinquency, risks of seizure, and direct impact on Gkay’s credibility.
-
The Senate approves a bill that criminalizes misogyny, hatred, or aversion towards women, and includes the crime in the Racism Law with a penalty of up to 5 years.
-
Chamber Approves Bill That Allows Pepper Spray for Women Over 16 and Imposes Strict Rules for Purchase, Possession, and Use as Self-Defense
The decision also sets a daily fine of R$ 1 thousand to deter any recidivism, covering actions of organizing, participating, or advocating for cockfighting.
The judge also ordered the sending of official letters to state and municipal environmental secretariats and to regulatory agencies across the country.
The goal is to inhibit and repress the repetition of the activity and prevent similar practices in other territories, expanding the educational reach of the decision.
How the Cockfighting Scheme Worked
Cockfights occurred at a site in Araçagy, in São Luís, discovered after an anonymous tip in 2016.
At the site, the police found arenas, sheds with cages, 188 birds of the Brazilian Indian breed, as well as medications, syringes, and artificial spurs used to enhance injuries during the fights.
According to the decision, one of the defendants provided lectures and brought his own animals, while another charged admission fees and assisted in the organization.
The association promoted the practice on its official website, characterizing advocacy and facilitating the structuring of events with extensive participation.
Legal Foundations and Environmental Responsibility
For the judge, the protection of fauna is a constitutional clause and prohibits any practices that subject animals to cruelty.
The conviction is also based on objective liability for environmental damage, supported by the theory of full risk, where proof of damage and causal link is sufficient to create the obligation to indemnify.
The forensic report and photographs presented in the case proved the setup for the fights and the injuries to the 188 seized roosters.
This body of evidence supported the conclusion that there was intense suffering and a violation of diffuse legal interests, justifying indemnification for collective moral damages.
Collective Moral Damage and Social Repulsion
The sentence notes that cockfighting generates social repulsion, as it subjects animals to suffering as a form of entertainment and betting.
The Superior Court of Justice recognizes the possibility of collective moral damages when the conduct offends the legal order, transcends tolerability limits, and affects the community with feelings of frustration, helplessness, and outrage.
In this regard, the fixed amount and daily fine serve a pedagogical and dissuasive function, aiming to deter the practice and reaffirm that acts of cruelty against animals will not be tolerated.
Solidary responsibility was determined because all contributed to the same environmental damage.
Practical Impacts of the Decision
In the short term, the conviction creates legal barriers for the resumption of events and strengthens regulatory action.
The sending of official letters expands the range of action for environmental agencies and standardizes alerts for other locations, which tends to increase the risk of liability in similar initiatives.
In the medium and long term, the decision consolidates local jurisprudence aligned with the protection of fauna and strengthens public policies aimed at combating environmental crimes.
The predictability of penalties, including daily fines and compensation, encourages reporting and deters investors and promoters of such illegal activities.
What Happens From Now On
With the sentence, space opens for enforcement of the fines and monitoring of the compliance with imposed obligations.
Environmental agencies and police should intensify inspections and preventive actions, using this case as a reference for integrated action.
For the Public Ministry, the decision constitutes a practical precedent for new public civil actions involving cockfighting and animal abuse, especially when there is material evidence of the event structure and public dissemination in digital media.
Do you think the penalties applied in cases of cockfighting are sufficient to curb the practice? In your view, more frequent inspections and progressive fines would yield better results? Share your opinion in the comments; we want to hear from those closely following wildlife protection and law enforcement.
Seja o primeiro a reagir!