Sentencing guidelines and commissions have diffused widely across jurisdictions, reshaping the governance of punishment, as documented by Roberts et al.’s state-of-the-art synthesis. Yet Latin America remains a conspicuous “missing case” in this global trend, despite facing some of the world's most acute penal crises. Brazil exemplifies this absence: although its 1940 Penal Code introduced a formally structured sentencing framework, in practice it entrenched expansive discretion and a pattern of punitive consistency, with harsh sentences routinely justified through indeterminate evaluative factors and limited accountability. Drawing on comparative insights and policy-transfer scholarship, this article advances a blueprint for structured sentencing reform in Brazil grounded in structured proportionality, hybrid guideline design, institutional oversight, and resource sensitivity. By situating Brazil within the Global South, the article contributes to international debates on how sentencing reforms can “travel South” and adapt to post-authoritarian, resource-constrained contexts.
AlivertiA.CarvalhoH.ChamberlenA.SozzoM. (2023). Introduction. In AlivertiA.CarvalhoH.ChamberlenA.SozzoM. (Eds.), Decolonizing the criminal question: Colonial legacies, contemporary problems (pp. 1–15). Hart Publishing.
2.
AlvesJ. A. (2018). The anti-black city: Police terror and black urban life in Brazil. University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt20h6vpx
3.
AshworthA.RobertsJ. V. (2013). Sentencing guidelines: Exploring the English model. Oxford University Press.
CamposG. S. Q. (2024). Discricionariedade judicial e autoritarismo na aplicação da pena: O “decisionismo” antigarantista na dosimetria penal brasileira. Revista Magister de Direito Penal e Processual Penal, 121, 76–95.
7.
CamposG. S. Q.BedêA.Jr.FerreiraA. P. A. (2026). Sentence variability in a mathematical sentencing framework: A statistical analysis of Brazilian court data. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 23(2), 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70027
8.
CerqueiraD.LimaR. S.BuenoS.ValenciaL. I.HanashiroI.MachadoP. H. G.LimaA. L. (2019). Atlas da violência 2019. Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA) & Fórum Brasileiro de Segurança Pública. https://www.ipea.gov.br/atlasviolencia
9.
Corte Constitucional de Colombia. (1998). Sentencia T-153/1998.
10.
Corte Constitucional de Colombia. (2013). Sentencia T-388/2013.
11.
Corte Constitucional de Colombia. (2015). Sentencia T-762/2015.
12.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
13.
DolowitzD. P.MarshD. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance, 13(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00121
14.
DouradoL. M. B.FischerB. (2021). Drug sentencing in Brazil: Factors influencing sentencing outcomes in the criminal courts of Recife/PE. Journal of Crime and Criminal Justice Policy and Practice, 7(4), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-02-2021-0006
15.
DuceM. (2000). La reforma procesal penal en América Latina: Avances, obstáculos y lecciones comparadas. Centro de Estudios de Justicia de las Américas (CEJA). https://cejamericas.org
16.
FraseR. S. (2005). Sentencing guidelines in Minnesota, 1978–2003. Crime and Justice, 32, 131–219. https://doi.org/10.1086/655354
17.
FraseR. S. (2019). Forty years of American sentencing guidelines: What have we learned?Crime and Justice, 48, 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1086/701503
18.
FreibergA. (2014). Sentencing, discretion and instinctive synthesis. In FreibergA.GelbK. (Eds.), Penal populism, sentencing councils and sentencing policy (pp. 47–66). Federation Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315820095
19.
Gazal-AyalO. (2013). A global perspective on sentencing reforms. Law and Contemporary Problems, 76(1), 1–8.
20.
GertnerN. (2010). A short history of American sentencing: Too little law, too much law, or just right?Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100(3), 691–708.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (2004). Instituto de Reeducación del Menor v. Paraguay (Judgment of September 2, 2004).
23.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (2011). Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador (Judgment of May 19, 2011).
24.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (2013). Mendoza et al. v. Argentina (Judgment of May 14, 2013).
25.
KrasnosteinS. (2015). Boulton v the queen: The resurrection of guideline judgments in Australia?Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 27(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2015.12036030
26.
KrasnosteinS.FreibergA. (2012). Sentencing guideline schemes across the United States and beyond. In The Oxford handbook of criminology and criminal justice (online ed.). Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/41333/chapter/352355056
27.
KrasnosteinS.FreibergA. (2013). Pursuing consistency in an individualistic sentencing framework: If you know where you’re going, how do you know when you’ve got there?Law and Contemporary Problems, 76(1), 265–288.
LaceyN. (2021). Getting proportionality in perspective: Philosophy, history, and institutions. Crime and Justice, 50, 77–114. https://doi.org/10.1086/715030
30.
LaceyN.PickardH. (2015). The chimera of proportionality? Institutionalising limits on punishment in contemporary social and political systems. The Modern Law Review, 78(2), 216–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12114
31.
LagesL. B.RibeiroL. (2024). Every mind is a different world: Do judges truly decide in such diverse ways?Brazilian Political Science Review, 18(3), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-3821202400030004
32.
LangerM. (2004). From legal transplants to legal translations: The globalization of plea bargaining and the americanization thesis in criminal procedure. Harvard International Law Journal, 45(1), 1–64.
MachadoM. R. (2016). Entre a lei e o juiz: Os processos decisórios na definição de penas. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Criminais, 126, 1–22.
36.
MelossiD.SozzoM.SparksR. (2011). Introduction. Criminal questions: Cultural embeddedness and diffusion. In MelossiD.SozzoM.SparksR. (Eds.), Travels of the criminal question: Cultural embeddedness and diffusion (pp. 1–14). Hart Publishing.
37.
NelkenD. (2011). Theorising the embeddedness of punishment. In MelossiD.SozzoM.SparksR. (Eds.), Travels of the criminal question: Cultural embeddedness and diffusion (pp. 21–42). Hart Publishing.
38.
Roberts, J. V. (2013). Sentencing guidelines in England and Wales? Recent developments and emerging issues. Law and Contemporary Problems, 76(1), 1–25.
SozzoM. (2011). Cultural travels and crime prevention in Argentina. In MelossiD.SozzoM.SparksR. (Eds.), Travels of the criminal question: Cultural embeddedness and diffusion (pp. 185–215). Hart Publishing.
45.
SozzoM. (2025). Criminal justice reform, americanization, and conviction without trial in Argentina. In SantoL. D.SozzoM. (Eds.), Punishment in Latin America: Explorations from the margins (pp. 59–85). Emerald Publishing.
TestaA.SantosM. R.RibeiroL. M. L.HartleyR. D. (2022). Assessing racial disparities in homicide sentencing: Findings from Brazil. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(9–10), 6553–6575. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221135143
50.
TonryM. (2005). The functions of sentencing and sentencing reform. Stanford Law Review, 58(1), 37–76.
51.
UlmerJ. T. (2019). Criminal courts as inhabited institutions: Making sense of difference and similarity in sentencing. Crime and Justice, 48(1), 483–522. https://doi.org/10.1086/701504
52.
VignaA.Sosa BarónS. (2022). The arrival of the risk paradigm to prison management in Uruguay. In SantoL. D.SozzoM. (Eds.), Punishment in Latin America: Explorations from the margins (pp. 131–143). Emerald Publishing.
53.
von HirschA. (1993). Censure and sanctions. Oxford University Press.
54.
WasikM. (2008). Sentencing guidelines in England and Wales: State of the art?Criminal Law Review, 2008(4), 253–266.
