crime, justice and social democracy: proceedings …eprints.qut.edu.au/101216/1/fonseca - punishment...

CRIME, JUSTICE AND SOCIAL

DEMOCRACY: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, 2015, VOLUME 1

Editors: Helen Berents and John Scott

Crime and Justice Research Centre, Faculty of Law Queensland University of Technology

9-10 July 2015

www.crimejusticeconference.com

www.cjrc.qut.edu.au

©CrimeandJusticeResearchCentreQUT2015Publishedby: CrimeandJusticeResearchCentre QueenslandUniversityofTechnologyPhone: +61731387116Email: [email protected]: Level5,XBlock GardensPoint 2GeorgeSt BrisbaneQLD4000PostalAddress: QUTFacultyofLaw GPOBox2432 BrisbaneQLD4000ISBN978-0-9874678-6-7

Editors’IntroductionWearepleasedtopresenttheseselectedpapersfromtheproceedingsofthe3rdCrime,Justice and Social Democracy International Conference, held in July 2015 in Brisbane,Australia.Over350delegates attended the conference from19 countries. Thepaperscollectedherereflectthediversityoftopicsandthemesthatwereexploredoverthreedays.TheCrime,JusticeandSocialDemocracyInternationalConferenceaimstostrengthentheintellectualandpolicydebatesconcerninglinksbetweenjustice,socialdemocracy,andthereductionofharmandcrime,throughbuildingmorejustandinclusivesocietiesandproposing innovative justice responses. In 2015, attendees discussed these issues astheyrelatedto ideasofgreencriminology; indigenous justice;gender,sexand justice;punishmentandsociety;andtheemergingnotionof ‘Southerncriminology’.Theneedtobuildglobalconnectionstoaddressthesechallenges ismoreevidentthaneverandthe conference and theseproceedings reflect a growing attention to interdisciplinary,novel,andinterconnectedresponsestocontemporaryglobalchallenges.Authors in these conference proceedings engaged with issues of online fraud, queercriminology and law, Indigenous incarceration, youth justice, incarceration in Brazil,and policing in Victoria, Australia, among others. The topics explored speak to thethemesoftheconferenceanddemonstratetherangeofchallengesfacingresearchersofcrime,harm,socialdemocracyandsocialjusticeandthespacesofpossibilitythatsuchresearchopens.Our thanks to the conference convenor, Dr Kelly Richards, for organising such asuccessful conference, and to all those presenters who subsequently submitted suchexcellentpapersforreviewhere.WewouldalsoparticularlyliketothankJessRodgersfortheirtirelesseditorialassistance,aswellasthepanelofinternationalscholarswhoparticipatedinthereviewprocess,oftenwithintighttimelines.DrHelenBerentsandProfessorJohnScott,SchoolofJustice,FacultyofLaw,QUT.

TableofContents CROSS,Cassandra

PolicingOnlineFraudinAustralia:TheEmergenceofaVictim-OrientedApproach

1

SARRE,RickMetadataRetention:AReviewofthePolicyImplicationsforAustralians

9

HARKNESS,AlexanderPoliceasBuildersofSocialCapitalwithFarmers:AddressingPropertyTheftfromFarmsinVictoria,Australia

18

PAYER,Hannah,TAYLOR,Andrew,BARNES,TonyWho’sMissing?DemographicImpactsfromtheIncarcerationofIndigenousPeopleintheNorthernTerritory,Australia

27

FONSECA,DavidSPunishmentandDemocracyinBrazil:MassIncarcerationinTimesofSocialInclusion

37

TAIT,Gordon,CARPENTER,Belinda,QUADRELLI,Carol,NAYLOR,CharlesPolicingExpertTestimonyinaDeathInvestigation:MedicalOpinionasLegalFact

46

KIRCHENGAST,TyroneVictims’RightsandtheRighttoReview

54

THOMAS,MarkCananEcdysiastFagSpeaktheVoiceofTransgender:Phoenix(Un)RisingandtheAssumptionsinReKevinRevisited

60

LE,TienHoang,TRINH,ThanhVan,CAO,AnhNgocSelf-HelpGroupsforHumanTraffickingVictimsinVietnam:AnInnovativeProgramModel

70

RAYCHAUDHURI,Tilottama India’sSexualHarassmentLaw:RenderingTokenism?

78

LARKIN,AshleighNewLadsorLadettes?ACritiqueofCurrentTheoreticalExplanationsforYoungWomen’sViolenceProliferatedoverSocialMedia

85

MAXWELL,MaureenRealisingResilienceinYouthJustice

91

Crime,JusticeandSocialDemocracy,3rdInternationalConference,2015 37

PunishmentandDemocracyinBrazil:MassIncarcerationinTimesofSocialInclusion

DavidSFonseca,UniversidadeFederaldeGoiás,Brazil

Conferencesubtheme:Inequality,punishmentandsocialexclusioninLatinAmerica

AbstractThe democratic transition in Brazil in the 1980s was accompanied by strong optimism inrelation to the returnof civil libertiesand theprovisionof social rights. In spiteofpoliticaland economic turbulence, this democratic period resulted in the progressive adoption ofinclusionary policies, the reduction of inequality and the expansion of rights to historicallymarginalisedsocialgroups.Thisatmosphereofsocialamelioration,however,hasbeenheavilyshaken by the concomitant development of mass incarceration within the criminal justicesystem.TheexpansionoftheBrazilianprisonsystemreachedunprecedentedlevels,keepingbehind bars more than half a million prisoners in recent years. The efforts of the federalgovernmenttocreateamorerobustandcentralisedapparatusofcrimecontroltogetherwithpublic outcry for toughermeasures has endangeredmany of the inclusive policies enactedduringthisperiod.Thispaperexploresthiscurrent incarcerationproblemanditsroots inaprocessofrecentmodernisationatthehandsofthefederalgovernment.

IntroductionTherecentprocessofdemocratisationinBrazilhasledtoamoreprogressiveapproachintermsofstateinterventionasavastarrayofpoliticalandsocial rightsweregrantedby thenewconstitutionalorder,appeasingthesocialmovementsandpoliticalorganisationssubjecttothehardshipsandrepressionofthepast military regime (Carvalho 2001). The end of this regime reactivated a public sphere in whichconcernswithindividuallibertiesandsocialjusticebecameprevalent(Holston2007).Thenewlegislativeframework incorporated a number of elements to improve social conditions and ameliorate the livingstandardsofmarginalsectorsofsociety.Theseadvanceshavecertainlyaffectedthesocialstructureofthecountry,althoughtheystillneedtobefurtheredtoencompasslargersectorsofthepopulation(McCann2008;Reiter2009).The reforms of the criminal justice system and their respective consequences, however, might havehampered this recent process of the amelioration of socioeconomic conditions. The rise of democraticinstitutions,togetherwithanincreasingimprisonmentofthelowerclasses(Wacquant2008),presentsanintriguingpuzzle.Thewideningofdemocraticparticipationbrought in itswakean increase inpunitivepractices and the expansion of a control network. This leads to a contradiction in which progressivemeasures have been counteracted by repressive means, subjecting the same population to bothemancipatorypracticesandtothedetrimentaleffectsofimprisonment(BeckettandGodoy2008).A juridical order based on respect for human rights and social justice notwithstanding, the prisonpopulation has skyrocketed, leading to a situation of overcrowding throughout the system.During theperiod inwhich these reformsoccurred, the countrywitnessedanunprecedentedand steep rise in itsprisonpopulation.Theperceptionofviolentcrimeandtherespectivereactionstothisphenomenonhadalreadyoccurred in thebeginningof thedemocratic transition(Benevides1983).Demands forharshermeasuresandamorerobustactiononthepartofpoliceforceshavebeenaccompaniedbyaretreatoftheupper and middle classes from public spaces (Caldeira 2000; Chevigny 2003). Moving away from apoliticallyauthoritativeregime,whichwasmostlyconcernedwithpoliticalcrimesandfacedlowlevelsofperceivedurbandelinquency,thenewdemocraticperiodcanalsobecharacterisedbyastrongefforttocastthenetofsocialcontrolwider(Peralva2000).Restructuringtheagenciesofsocialcontrolthrough

DavidFFonseca


moreefficientsystemsofinformation,novelformsofpolicingandincreasedbudgetshasledtoastrongerrepressiveapparatus,capableofbetterenforcing itspotentialpunitivepower, inturnresulting inmassimprisonment.Thecontentionhereisthatreformsofcriminaljusticeintroducedbythefederalgovernmenthavedeeplytransformedthefieldandestablishedanewmodeofgovernanceofcrimeandpunishment.Inspiteofarhetoric of human rights and social justice, embedded in a newly created democratic order, this newapproachhasenhancedmanagerialefficiency,promptingamorepunitivecriminaljusticeinwhichpolicerepressionofpropertycrimesanddrugtraffickingplaysamajorrole.Asaresult, thesituationofmassimprisonment and subjugationofmarginalised communitieshashindered the socioeconomic advancesenabled by democratic transition. This paper aims to demonstrate that the current criminal justice inBrazilconsequentlypresentsaperversechallengetodemocraticpoliticalparticipation.ThearrivalofmassincarcerationThepresentsituationofmassincarcerationinBrazilisarecentprobleminthecountry,whichpossessedrelatively low rates of incarceration until themid-1990s. Although the system always faced problemswithabuse,overcrowdingandprecariousnessofprisoninstitutions(Chazkel2009;Coelho2005;Ferreira2009),theescalationofincarcerationbringsunprecedentedchallengestothecriminaljusticesystem.Thesystemreached607731inmatesbehindbarsinJuneof2014,witharateof299.7prisonersper100000inhabitants(Figure1).Theconsequencesfortheprisonsystemareappalling,butthesocialcostsofthisphenomenonexactsanevenhigherprice.

Figure1:Prisonpopulationandratesofimprisonment(1981-2014)(InstitutoBrasileirode

GeografiaeEstatística[IBGE]1981,1984;MinistériodaJustiça1994,1998,2014). Otherofficialsourcesarealreadydepictingaworsescenariothanthatpresentedintheofficialstatisticsof theMinistry of Justice. More recently, the National Council of Justice (Conselho Nacional de Justiça[CNJ])hasofferedagrimmerdepictionof theprisonsystemand its respectivepopulation.RecentdatafromtheMinistryofJusticehaveacknowledgedalargenumberofpretrialdetaineesbehindbars,placingpressureuponthejudiciaryforitsapparentinefficiencyandslownessinprocessingcriminalcases.Thejudiciary struck back at the executive with its internal statistics. In Brazilian legislation, criminalsconvicted to a term shorter than four years of imprisonment can be sentenced to an open regime, inwhich theywork during the day and return to special facilities in the evening. Under the influence of

0.0

75.0

150.0

225.0

300.0

375.0

0.

175000.

350000.

525000.

700000.

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014 RateofImprisonmentper100000inhabitants

Num

berofInmates

Prisonpopulationandratesofimprisonment(1981-2014)

DavidFFonseca


Crofton’sIrishsystem,1Brazilianjurisdictionalsograntsthisallowancetoinmatesinthelaterstagesoftheirprisonterm.However,thenumberofspecialfacilitiesgearedtowardsaccommodatingthistypeofinmate is far smaller than required. It hasbecomea jurisprudentialpractice to shift this softer regimeinto a domiciliary prison system, in which prisoners must stay in their homes during the night andweekends. According to the judiciary, almost 150 000 individuals are currently in this situation.Concomitantly,thejudiciaryalsorevealedthenumberofactivearrestwarrants,totallingmorethan370000openarrestorders.Byrevealingthesenumbers,thejudicialsystemclaimedthat715655individualsareofficiallyincarceratedinthecountry,butthetotalshouldbemorethanonemillioninmates.Thus,theshortageofplacesrosefrom210436,basedonthefiguresfromtheMinistryofJustice,toanastounding732 427, according to the judiciary. These revised figures show that the ratio of pre-trial detaineesdropped significantly, allowing the judicial system to fend off some of the criticism targeting itsinefficiency(Figure2).

Figure2:Reviewofprisonpopulation(CNJ2014).However,thesefiguresstill failtoaccountforthenumberof individualssubjecttoalternativepenaltiesand under the control of the criminal justice apparatus. In an effort to divert people from prison, thecountryhasenactednewtypesofpunishment, includingcommunityserviceandrestrainingorders, formisdemeanoursandotherminoroffences.Asof2009,671078individualsweresubjecttosomesortofalternativetoincarcerationbutstillremainedwithinthereachofthecriminaljusticesurveillancesystem(MinistériodaJustiça2010).Inthissense,theexpansionofcustodialandnon-custodialsanctionsindicatethegovernment iscastingthenetofsocialcontrolwider(Cohen1985).Thesenumbersgreatlyenlargethechallengeofcriminaljusticeanddemonstrateamuchlargerreachoftheinstitutionsofsocialcontrol.Longtermmodernisation:ConsolidatingtheapparatusInternational literatureoffersanumberofreasonsandaccounts forexplaining theexpansionofprisonpopulations inotherpartsof theworld(foranoverview,seeGarland2013;Gottschalk2012).Broadly,largestructuralandculturalchangesinthelastdecadesofthepastcentury,groupedundertheconceptoflatemodernity,promptedthearrivalofhigh-crimesocietiesandtheemergenceofmassincarcerationinWesternsocieties (Garland2001).Within thisnewarrangement, the retrenchmentof thewelfarestateand the emergence of neoliberal policies (Cavadino and Dignan 2006; Wacquant 2009) — mostly in

1Thestageprogressivesystemconsistsofthetransitionfromthesternestprisonregimeintoincreasinglysofteronesasadevelopmentalprocesstowardsregainingfreedom.

0

300000

600000

900000

1200000

prisonpopulation(1)

de�icit(1) prisonpopulation+homeprison

(2)

de�icit(2) prisonpopulation+homeprison+openarrestwarrants(3)

de�icit(3) prisoncapacity

Reviewofprisonpopulation

prisonpopulation homeprison openarrestwarrants de�ict prisoncapacity

DavidFFonseca


regionswithadvanced liberalmarketeconomies (Lacey2008)—resulted in the replacementof socialprovisions with penal measures. The effects of punitive electoral campaigns playing upon the fear ofcrime and the increasingmedia focus on crime and crime control helped to shift the nature of penalpolicies fromrehabilitativemeasurestomorepunitiveand,hence,custodialapproaches(Beckett1997;Gottschalk 2006). The overrepresentation of immigrants and other marginalised groups in jails andprisons also indicates the emergence of penal policies targeting vulnerable individuals. As for the US,given the nature of race relations in the country,mass incarceration has been indicated as a backlashagainst the Civil Rights Movement from the 1960s, subjecting Black people to higher rates ofincarceration(Alexander2010;Beckett1997).ThisnarrativealsoresonateswithBrazilianchanges,eventhoughculturalspecificitiesrequiresituatingthesetransformationsinaspecificframeworkforthecountry.Theprisonexpansioniscertainlyrelatedto theriseofcrimeratesandtherespectiveperceptionofcrimeasapressingsocialproblemsince theendofthe1970s(Benevides1983;Caldeira2000),2butotherfactorsalsoplayedanimportantrole.TheinternationalnarrativesshedlightonmanyofthedevelopmentsalsotakingplaceinLatinAmericaandBrazil (Fonseca 2012; Iturralde 2010; Sozzo 2012). From wide structural changes embedded in latemodernity to the toughening discourse of political rhetoric in electoral campaigns, Brazilian penalpolicieshavebeensubjecttothecontradictoryandvolatilepressuresofthesedevelopments,resultinginasystemincreasinglypronetoincarcerationandpenalcontrol.Forthepurposesoftheargumenthere,itis important to note the strengthening of the state apparatus as a relevant factor for the currentpredicamentoftheBraziliancriminaljusticesystem.In places where the state has already consolidated a bureaucratic apparatus, its size fluctuates,sometimes expanding and at other times shrinking. Multiple factors determine the reach of the stateapparatus, such as the degree of intervention in social life and the amount of resources available fordeveloping state structures. In Brazil, given its vast territorial extent and its complex process ofdevelopment, the roleof thestate in thegovernanceof social lifehasencounteredmomentsofgreaterand lesser intervention. This fluctuation might prove helpful to understand historical patterns ofimprisonmentandcrimecontrol.Infact,theestablishmentofthismorerobustapparatushasbeenalong-termenterprise inwhichamoredistancedhistoricalapproachrevealsa steadygrowthofmechanismsand institutions of crime control and punishment. However, important transformations increased thepaceofexpansionsincethereturnofdemocracy.Forthepurposesofthepresentstudy,oneinterestingwaytocomprehendthesechangesistoscavengethe available data and establish a few possible comparisons between historically different sets ofinformation.Forinstance,whenanalysingtheproportionoftypesofoffencesamonginmatesbehindbarsin different historical moments, it is possible to follow the trend of an incremental bureaucraticdevelopment(Figure3).From the availabledata, it is clear that in the1930s, homicideswere themost important target of thecriminaljusticesystem.Forhistoricalreasonsunderlyingthemethodsofdatagathering,thisonlyreferstosentencedinmates,whichhavebeenthroughtheentirejudicialprocessandreceivedafinalconviction.The preeminence of murderers in the convicted prison population around that time supports thehypothesisthatotherformsofdeviancereceiveddifferenttreatmentfromtheformalinstitutionsofcrimecontrol. In an environment still lacking amore solid state presence, the performance of crime controlwouldfocusonthemostsensitivecasesandtypesofbehaviours.

2Though statistics of recorded crimemightpresent adistortedviewon crime trends (Caldeira2000;Kitsuse andCicourel 1963), the total number of homicides in this period offer compelling evidence of a steep increase ininterpersonalviolenceandcrime,as the figuresrose from11194to58497homicidesbetween1979and2014,respectivelyrepresentingarateof10and28.8casesfor100000inhabitants.

DavidFFonseca


Figure3:Incarceratedpopulationbytypeofoffenceatdifferenthistoricalmoments(IBGE1975;

MinistériodaJustiça1937,2014).Thegradualchangeofsociallifeandthedevelopmentofbureaucraticstructureshaveclearlycontributedtoamorepervasivestatepresence,incorporatingdifferenttypesandalargernumberofbehavioursintothe purview of the criminal justice apparatus. The increase in convictions for property crimes, theintroductionofdrugoffences,andtheunveilingofabuseandviolenceindomesticsettingsareallpartofarecently formed crime complex whose surveillance and control encompass many more activities andbehaviours.Thesetransformationssignaltheemergenceofabetterassembledstateapparatus,capableofbetterenforcing its rulesand regulations. In spiteof averypronounced increase inhomicidenumberssince1979,aspreviouslyindicated,thepercentageofconvictsformurdercontinuestofallintheoverallprison population. On closer inspection, the rise of imprisoned convicts for property crimes and drugoffencesreveals,at thesametime,adisturbing focusonthemachineryofcrimecontrolspecialisingonthedelinquencyinthelowerechelonsofthesocialstructure.In a longer historical series, however, it is possible to notice the expansion of the apparatus and itsefficiency. The curve of convicted inmates (Figure 4) demonstrates how the criminal justice systemdeeplychangedinrecentdecades,offeringamuchmoreinterventionistapparatusofcontrol. Thedataofconvictedprisonersdemonstratethesubstantialincreaseoverthelastdecades,mostlyafterthe end of the dictatorship. It is important to notice that the criminal system in the country has gonethroughimportantchangessincethemid-1980s.Besidesitssheerexpansion,thefederaladministrationhasadoptedamorerobustapproach tocrimeandpunishment.Althoughheavilyassociatedwithotherfactors,theinitiativesofthefederalgovernmentbeargreatresponsibilityforthislaterincrease.

DavidFFonseca


Figure4:Populationofconvictedprisoners1906-2012(IBGE1981,1984;MinistériodaJustiça

1998) Thereturnofdemocracy:FederalgovernmentinitiativesBesides these long terms developments, the period after democratisation haswitnessed an importantreconfiguration of punishment and crime control in the country. The standard account in Brazilemphasisesthepoliticalnatureof thisshiftasaresultofmediaoutcry, inwhichtougherpenalpoliciesaredeemedresponsiblefortherecentmassincarceration.TheNationalPlanforCriminalandPenitentiaryPolicy(PlanoNacionaldePolíticaCriminalePenitenciária),formulatedin2011bytheNationalCouncilofCriminal and Penitentiary Policy (Conselho Nacional de Política Criminal e Penitenciária [CNPCP]),articulatesasimilarperspective inBrazil, stating that legislativeopportunismandmedia frenzy ‘feedapernicious fatalism and the feeling of revenge in the Brazilian people’, which leads to the ‘hatred ofBraziliansagainstBrazilians’andpushesfor ‘institutionalviolence’(MinistériodaJustiça2011:1).Thisalignswiththeargumentthatinrecentdecades,withtheweakeningofpenalbureaucracies,itispossibletowitnessthereawakeningofpunitivefeelings(Hallsworth2002;Pratt2000).Hence,attentiontowardspopularattitudesisregardedaslargelyresponsiblefortheworseningofincarceration.However, thisprocessdoesnot takeplace inan institutionalvacuum.The technocraticmanagementofthecriminaljusticesystem,mostlyatthefederallevel,hashelpedtocreatethecurrentsituationofmassincarceration.Publicpolicieshavebeenaimedatenhancingsocialcontrol,allocatingmoreresources,andintegrating informationsystems.ThreeNationalPlansattempted to interweave federal, state,and localspheres (InstitutoCidadania2002;Ministérioda Justiça2000,2007).All thisefforthas theunintendedconsequence of enlarging the net of social control. At the same time, federal expenditure in this fieldincreased 202 per cent between 2003 and 2009 (Fórum Brasileiro de Segurança Pública 2010) Thus,thesepoliciesweregearedtowardsmassincarcerationinthecountry.In recent years, centralisation has become a trend within the criminal justice system as the federalgovernmenthasincreasinglytakenonresponsibilityforcrimecontrolandimprisonment.Afteramomentof contradiction and volatility during democratic transition, the federal government stepped onto thefield inanattempt tocreateamore integratedsystem, reducedisparitiesamongdifferent regions,andenhanceoverallinstitutionalefficiency.From2000,itestablisheditselfasmajorplayerwithinthefield,in

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

1906

1934

1942

1950

1954

1960

1964

1973

1977

1981

1985

1994

2000

2006

2012

Populationofconvictedprisoners(1906-2012)

DavidFFonseca


charge of allocating budget lines, managing information, and developing nationwide policies. Mostrecently,ithascreatedaFederalPrisonSystemandanEmergencyPoliceForce,but,aboveall,ithasbeenissuingclearguidelinesandmonitoringperformance indicatorsonregional levels (Soares2006,2007).Thiscentralisationprocessfollowsatechnocraticpattern,bufferingthecriminaljusticesystemfromstateand local pressures. It seeks uniformity among states, reducing regional disparities,while at the sametimeproducingamorerationaldecision-makingprocessinwhichmanagerialtechniquesguidepracticeandenableaccountability throughperformance indicators.Thesedevelopmentsmayformthecoreofanewmodeofgovernanceresponsible,toalargeextent,formostoftherecentoutcomesinthefield.Inregardstopunishment,thefederalgovernmenthasprovidedsupportfortheexpansionoftheprisonsystem, funding the creation of new establishments and places within it as the main solution to theproblem of overcrowding. It is clear that growing numbers of inmates and deteriorating conditions ofincarceration have prompted the federal government to provide support for the construction andexpansion of prison facilities (Sapori 2007). Adopting these measures has surely contributed to theconsolidationofmassimprisonment,asthesereformshaverevampedtheprisonsystemandprepareditforamoresubstantialrole.Inthissense,governmentalactionshowsahighdegreeofambivalenceonthistopic,asthegovernmentseekstoenlargethecapacityfor imprisonmentwhileacknowledgingtheneedfor alternatives to incarceration. It is difficult to reconcile this process of expansion with the idealsespousedinthenewdemocraticorder.ConclusionDemocracy, considered only in its formal aspects, does not seem to clash with a more robust penalsystem, even in light ofmass incarceration (Greenberg andWest 2001). From this perspective, publicdeliberation and electoral participation could override inclusionary social processes and individualguarantees.Thislimitedperspectiveondemocracyiscapableofreconcilingdemocraticparticipationandtheviolationofanumberofindividualandpoliticalliberties,butthisissurelynotthekindofdemocracyadoptedintheBrazilianconstitutionalframework.Theprovisionofthe1988Chartergrantedsolidprotectionofsocial,economicandculturalrightstotheBrazilian citizenry, even though its actual implementation has been far from adequate. It associateddemocracywiththesocialbettermentofthepopulation,demandinghigherlevelsofeducation,healthandsocialprotection for the full enjoymentof citizenship (Holston2007).Theconstitutionalordergrantedthecountry,inthissense,asocialdemocracywithakeygoalofdeliveringeconomicandsocialequality.Theriseinincarcerationdeliversanimportantblowtothisprocess,asithindersthebasisoftheentireinclusionaryenterprise.The process of modernisation does not happen in a progressive continuum, in which each new stepfurtherstheadvancesofpastendeavours.Itmovesforwardandbackwards;itstaggers.Inrecentyears,thismodernisationprocessmadesignificantadvances inBrazil.Vastsocial inclusionhasbeenthemostsuccessful and conspicuous aspect of it. However, it also meant changes in other areas of social andinstitutional life.Thepredicamentofmass incarcerationandhighcrimerateshascertainlybeenoneofthedownsidesoftheserecentdevelopments.ReferencesAlexanderM(2010)TheNewJimCrow:MassIncarcerationinanAgeofColorblindness.NewYork:TheNewPress.BeckettK(1997)MakingCrimePay:LawandOrderinContemporaryAmericanPolitics.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.BeckettKandGodoyA(2008)Power,politics,andpenality:PunitivenessasbacklashinAmericandemocracies.In

SaratA(ed)StudiesinLaw,PoliticsandSocietyVol.45:139-173.EmeraldGroupPublishingLimited.BenevidesML(1983)Violência,PovoePolícia:ViolênciaUrbananoNoticiáriodeImprensa[Violence,Peopleand

Police:UrbanViolenceintheNews].SãoPaulo:Brasiliense.

DavidFFonseca


CaldeiraTPdR(2000)CityofWalls:Crime,SegregationandCitizenshipinSãoPaulo.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

CavadinoMandDignamJ(2006)PenalSystems:AComparativeApproach.London:Sage.CarvalhoJMd(2001)CidadanianoBrasil:OLongoCaminho[CitizenshipinBrazil:TheLongWay].RiodeJaneiro:

CivilizaçãoBrasileira.ChazkelA(2009)Umaperigosíssimalição:AcasadedetençãodoRiodeJaneironaPrimeiraRepública[Avery

dangerouslesson:ThehouseofdetentionofRiodeJaneirointheFirstRepublic].InMaiaCN,SáNetoFD,CostaM,BretasML(eds)HistóriadasPrisõesnoBrasil[HistoryofPrisonsinBrazil],Vol.2:7-45.RiodeJaneiro:Rocco.

ChevignP(2003)Thepopulismoffear:PoliticsofcrimeintheAmericas.Punishment&Society5(1):77-96.DOI:10.1177/1462474503005001293.

CoelhoC(2005)AOficinadoDiaboeOutrosEstudossobreCriminalidade[TheDevil’sWorkshopandOtherStudiesonCriminality].RiodeJaneiro:Record.

CohenS1985)VisionsofSocialControl:Crime,PunishmentandClassification.Cambridge:PolityPress.ConselhNacionaldeJustiça(CNJ)[NationalCouncilofJustice](2014)NovoDiagnósticodePessoasPresasnoBrasil

[TheNewDiagnosticsonIncarceratedPeopleinBrazil].Brasília:DepartamentoeMonitoraçãoeFiscalizaçãodoSistemaCarcerárioedoSistemadeExecuçãodeMedidasSocioeducativas(DMF).

FerreiraRA(2009)Otronconaenxovia:EscravoselivresnasprisõesPaulistasdosoitocentos[Thepilloryinthedungeons:SlavesandfreedslavesinthePaulista’sprisonsduringthe1800s].InMaiaCN,SáNetoFd,CostaM,BretasML(eds)HistóriadasPrisõesnoBrasil[HistoryofPrisonsinBrazil],Vol.1:179-215.RiodeJaneiro:Rocco.

FonsecaDS(2012)Assumindoriscos:AimportaçãodeestratégiasdepuniçãoecontroledocrimenoBrasil[Takingrisks:theimportofpunishmentandcrimecontrolstrategiesinBrazil].InCanêdoCandFonsecaDS(eds)Ambivalência,ContradiçãoeVolatilidade:LeiturasContemporâneasdaSociologiadaPunição[Ambivalence,ContradictionandVolatility:ContemporaryReadingsintheSociologyofPunishment]:297-338.BeloHorizonte:EdUFMG.

FórumBasileirodeSegurançaPública(FBSP)[BrazilianForumonPublicSecurity](2010)AnuáriodoFórumdeSegurançaPública[YearbookoftheForumonPublicSecurity].SãoPaulo:FBSP.

GarlandD(2001)TheCultureofControl:CrimeandSocialOrderinContemporarySociety.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

GarlandD(2013)PenaltyandthePenalState.Criminology51(3):475-517.DOI:10.1111/1745-9125.12015GottschalkM(2006)PrisonandtheGallows:ThePoliticsofMassIncarcerationinAmerica.Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.GottschalkM(2013)TheCarceralStateandthePoliticsofPunishment.InSimonJandSparksR(eds)TheSAGE

HandbookofPunishmentandSociety:205-241.London:SAGE.GreenbergDandWestV(2001)Stateprisonpopulationsandtheirgrowth,1971-1991.Criminology39(3):615-654.

DOI:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00935.x.Hallsworth,Simon.(2002)Thecaseforapostmodernpenalty.TheoreticalCriminology6(2):145-163.DOI:

10.1177/136248060200600202.HolstonJ(2007)InsurgentCitizenship:DisjunctionsofDemocracyandModernityinBrazil.Princeton:Princeton

UniversityPress.InstitutoBrasileirodeGeografiaeEstatística(IBGE)[BrazilianInstituteofGeographyandStatistics](1975)

EstatísticasdoSéculoXX[Statisticsofthe20thcentury].RiodeJaneiro,IBGE.InstitutoBrasileirodeGeografiaeEstatística(IBGE)[BrazilianInstituteofGeographyandStatistics](1981)

EstatísticasdoSéculoXX[Statisticsofthe20thcentury].RiodeJaneiro,IBGE.InstitutoBrasileirodeGeografiaeEstatística(IBGE)[BrazilianInstituteofGeographyandStatistics](1984)

EstatísticasdoSéculoXX[Statisticsofthe20thcentury].RiodeJaneiro,IBGE.InstitutoCidadania[CitizenshipInstitute](2002)ProjetoSegurançaPúblicaparaoBrasil[ProjectPublicSecurityfor

Brazil].SãoPaulo:InstitutoCidadania.IturraldeM(2010)Castigo,LiberalimoAutoritarioyJusticiaPenaldeExcepción[Punishment,Liberalismand

ExceptionalCriminalJustice].Bogotá:SiglodelHombreEditoresKitsuseJIandCicourelAV(1963)Anoteontheuseofofficialstatistics.SocialProblems11(2):131-139.DOI:

10.2307/799220.LaceyN(2008)ThePrisoners’Dilemma:PoliticalEconomyandPunishmentinContemporaryDemocracies.Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress.McCannB(2008)TheThroesofDemocracy:Brazilsince1989.NewYork:ZedBooks.MinistériodaJustiça[MinistryofJustice](1937)CensoPrisional[PrisonCensus].RiodeJaneiro:MinistériodaJustiça

DavidFFonseca


MinistérodaJustiça[MinistryofJustice](1994)CensoPenitenciárioNacional[NationalPrisonCensus].Brasília:ConselhoNacionaldePolíticaCriminalePenitenciária(CNPCP).

MinistéiodaJustiça[MinistryofJustice](1998)Estimativado“Déficit”deVagasnoSistemaPenitenciáriodoBrasil[EstimatesofDeficitsintheBrazilianPrisonSystem].Brasília:DepartamentoPenitenciárioNacional.

MinistériodaJustiça[MinistryofJustice](2000)PlanoNacionaldeSegurançaPública:OBrasildiznãoàViolência[NationalPlanofPublicSecurity:BrazilSaysNotoViolence].Brasília:MinistériodaJustiça.

MinistriodaJustiça[MinistryofJustice](2007)Pronasci:ProgramaNacionaldeSegurançaPúblicacomCidadania[Pronasci:NationalProgramofPublicSecuritywithCitizenship].Brasília:MinistériodaJustiça.

MinisériodaJustiça[MinistryofJustice](2010)10YnosdaPolíticaNacionaldePenaseMedidasAlternativas[10yearsoftheNationalPolicyonAlternativeMeasuresandPunishments].Brasília:MinistériodaJustiça.

MinistériodaJustiça[MinistryofJustice](2011)PlanoNacionaldePolíticaCriminalePenitenciária[NationalPlanofCriminalandPenitentiaryPolicy].Brasília:ConselhoNacionaldePolíticaCriminalePenitenciária(CNCP).

MinistériodaJustiça[MinistryofJustice](2014)LevantamentoNacionaldeInformaçõesPenitenciárias–Infopen[NationalSurveyofPenitentiaryInformation-Infopen].Brasília,DepartamentoPenitenciárioNacional.

PeralvaA(2000)ViolênciaeDemocracia:OParadoxoBrasileiro[ViolenceandDemocracy:TheBrazilianParadox].SãoPaulo:PazeTerra.

PrattJ(2000)Thereturnofthewheelbarrowmen;or,thearrivalofapostmodernpenalty?BritishJournalofCriminology40(1):127-145.DOI:10.1093/bjc/40.1.127.

ReiterB(2009)NegotiatingDemocracyinBrazil:ThePoliticsofExclusion.Boulder:FirstForumPress.SaporiLF(2007)SegurançaPúblicanoBrasil:DesafiosePerspectivas[PublicSecurityinBrazil:Challengesand

Perspectives].SãoPaulo:FGVeditora.SoaresLE(2006)SegurançaPública:Presenteefuturo[PublicSecurity:PresentandFuture].EstudosAvançados

[AdvancedStudies]20(56):91-106.SoaresLE(2007)APoliticaNacionaldeSegurançaPública:Histórico,dilemaseperspectivas[TheNationalPolicyon

PublicSecurity:history,dilemmasandperspectives].EstudosAvançados[AdvancedStudies]21(61):77-97.SozzoM(2012)TransformaçõesatuaisdasestratégiasdecontroledodelitonaArgentina:Notasparaaconstruçãode

umacartografiadopresente.[CurrenttransformationsincrimecontrolstrategiesinArgentina:Notesfortheconstructionofacartographyofthepresent]InCanêdoCandFonsecaDS(eds)Ambivalência,ContradiçãoeVolatilidade:LeiturasContemporâneasdaSociologiadaPunição[Ambivalence,ContradictionandVolatility:ContemporaryReadingsintheSociologyofPunishment]:211-295.BeloHorizonte:EdUFMG.

WacquntL(2008)Themilitarizationofurbanmarginality:LessonsfromtheBrazilianmetropolis.InternationalPoliticalSociology2(1):56-74.DOI:10.1111/j.1749-5687.2008.00037.x.

WacqantL(2009)PunishingthePoor:TheNeoliberalGovernmentofSocialInsecurity.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.

crime, justice and social democracy: proceedings …eprints.qut.edu.au/101216/1/fonseca - punishment...

Documents