The recent acquittal by the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais of a 35-year-old man accused of sexual abuse against a 12-year-old girl has reignited a debate around the legal concept known as 'distinguishing'. This term allows judges to diverge from legal precedents when they believe a current case has unique circumstances that warrant a different judicial outcome. In Brazil, the law clearly states that engaging in sexual relations with individuals under 14 years of age is a crime, regardless of consent, meaning that established legal frameworks are intended to protect minors from exploitation.

Brazil's Superior Court of Justice has reiterated this position in its ruling, specifically in summary 593, where it emphasizes that consent from minors or existing relationships does not exonerate the accused. However, the application of 'distinguishing' has led some courts to acquit defendants, citing specific case details that they argue justify a departure from established legal norms. This trend raises significant concerns about the potential for legal inconsistencies and the protection of vulnerable individuals within the judicial system.

The implications of using 'distinguishing' in such sensitive cases can have far-reaching consequences, potentially undermining the strict legal provisions designed to safeguard minors. As debates surrounding this legal concept continue, stakeholders including legal experts, child protection advocates, and lawmakers may need to confront the challenges of maintaining judicial integrity while ensuring justice for victims of sexual crimes. Indeed, a careful scrutiny of judicial practices will be crucial in protecting the rights and well-being of minors against sexual crimes.