THE THEORY OF GENERAL PREVENTION IN CRIMINAL LAW: LIMITS AND EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING CRIME

Abstract

This paper analyzes the theory of general prevention in Criminal Law, examining its foundations, limits, and effectiveness in reducing crime. The research differentiates between negative general prevention, based on social intimidation, and positive general prevention, focused on reaffirming the validity of criminal norms. It explores how these approaches interact with the constitutional principles of human dignity, proportionality, and individualization of punishment, which are central to the Democratic Rule of Law. Using a theoretical and critical approach grounded in doctrine, legislation, and jurisprudence from higher courts, the study demonstrates that general prevention, although frequently invoked as a political-criminal justification, shows limited effectiveness when applied in isolation. Empirical results, supported by national and international studies, indicate that stricter punishments do not necessarily correlate with lower crime rates, often producing adverse effects such as mass incarceration and the strengthening of organized crime. The paper also shows that positive general prevention has greater democratic legitimacy but depends on the credibility of institutions and prison conditions compatible with human rights. The conclusion emphasizes that general prevention should not be absolutized; instead, it must be combined with broader social and preventive policies, within the boundaries established by constitutional law. In this way, the study contributes to contemporary debates on the function of punishment in Brazil, proposing a critical and balanced perspective on its application.