Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
1 comment 
The 3rd Section Decision Will Define, In A Binding Manner, Whether The Salary Received By Inmates Can Be Used To Pay Judicial Debts, A Theme Considered A Serious Factor Of Marginalization.
The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has scheduled a trial that may significantly alter the reality of criminal enforcement in Brazil. The 3rd Section of the court will define a binding thesis on the possibility of garnishing the funds of convicted individuals to pay the fine. According to information from the portal Consultor Jurídico, this issue is viewed by experts as one of the main “factors of marginalization of the prison population”, directly impacting the ability of former inmates to reintegrate into society.
The funds, to clarify, are the amount that the inmate receives for work performed during their sentence. This money is deposited into a savings account and, in theory, should be given to the individual when they gain freedom, serving as initial support for their reintegration into society. The discussion at the STJ focuses on defining whether this money, which is considered essential for sustenance, can or cannot be blocked to pay fines imposed in the criminal sentence.
What Does The Law And Current Jurisprudence Say?
The basis for the discussion now reaching the STJ is found in the Law of Penal Executions (LEP). Article 29 of the law already provides for deductions from the funds for specific purposes, such as compensation for damages caused by the crime and financial assistance to the family. However, the application for fines generates an intense legal debate, which led to the matter being set for trial under the repetitive appeal procedure (Theme 1.383).
-
A bill could eliminate councilors in small towns in Brazil and replace fixed salaries with session allowances in municipalities with up to 30,000 inhabitants.
-
As the use of slimming pens grows in Brazil, a silent question arises among taxpayers in the 2026 income tax: why can’t these expenses be deducted and what specific detail could completely transform this rule into an isolated case?
-
He missed work to take care of his sick child, was fired for just cause, and ended up turning the tables in court with a decision that surprises companies.
-
STJ confirms that child support must be proportional to the father’s actual income and not to the mother’s standard of living — the decision reinforces balance in family obligations and prevents abuses in requests for increases.
According to the portal Consultor Jurídico, the STJ itself already has precedents that authorize the partial garnishment of funds for this purpose, especially after failed attempts by the Public Ministry to locate other assets. The argument is based on articles 164, 168, and 170 of the same LEP. The central point of the new thesis will therefore be to harmonize these provisions with the claim of non-garnishment of essential funds, a principle that protects salaries from judicial seizures.
The Social Impact: Why Does The Fine Marginalize?
The significance of this judgment by the STJ transcends the legal sphere and reaches the core of the reintegration policy. The fine has practically become a nearly insurmountable obstacle to reintegration for thousands of individuals. As pointed out by the portal Consultor Jurídico, the amounts imposed often contrast with the extreme poverty of the prison population, perpetuating a cycle of exclusion.
Without paying the fine, the criminal’s punishability is not extinguished. This means that even after serving their sentence, the individual remains with a series of civil and political rights suspended, facing barriers to obtain documents and reintegrate into the job market. In practice, the debt keeps them bound to a legal stigma that makes it difficult or even prevents them from rebuilding their lives, transforming a financial sanction into a permanent social barrier.
Who, How Much, And Why? The Answers At Stake
- Who Is Affected? Directly, the entire prison population that performs paid work and has a fine to be paid. Indirectly, their families and society itself.
- How Much Can Be Garnished? This is one of the points that the STJ decision must clarify. Current jurisprudence does not define a fixed percentage, creating legal uncertainty.
- Why Is This Being Decided Now? The growing number of cases on the subject prompted the STJ to seek a binding thesis, that is, a clear rule that must be followed by all judges and courts across the country to standardize decisions.
The central issue to be defined by the 3rd Section, reported by Minister Rogerio Schietti, is clear: “To define whether it is possible to garnish the funds of the convicted individual to pay the fine, given the claim of non-garnishment of essential funds.” The answer to this question will have a lasting impact on Brazilian criminal enforcement.
What is your opinion on the subject? Do you believe that the funds, being the result of the inmate’s work, should be untouchable to ensure their reintegration, or should they be used to pay all obligations of the conviction, including the fine? Share your views in the comments; we want to understand how society perceives this issue.
Entendo que conforme se aplica à população não carcerária, dever-se-ia permitir a penhora de até 30% do pecúlio para o pagamento de quaisquer dívidas que estejam em processo de execução contra o sentenciado, haja vista que a decisão de estar na condição de detento aconteceu unicamente por uma deliberação dele mesmo, não podendo qualquer credor ficar no prejuízo daquilo que tem a receber pelo motivo de que o devedor está preso.