Introduction
Brazil is the sixth largest country in the world with a population of over 202,000,000. In many aspects it is viewed as a regional leader and continues to boast both industrial and agricultural growth, development of its interior, and an ever growing role on the international stage. Brazil gained its independence from Portugal under a monarchial system of government in 1822. This period was followed by a military dictatorship lasting from 1888 to 1985, at which point the military peacefully transitioned power to civilian rulers. Brazil shares many of the challenges faced by other South American countries that have undergone transition from authoritarianism to a democratic government, one being a persistent breach between the principle …show more content…
State authority manifests itself primarily in street-level interactions between civilians and law enforcement officers who lack training, regulation, transparency, and compensation. The Brazilian police is made up of four different branches strategically instrumented to maintain order, while at the same time defining the very idea of it with little guidance or oversight (1). At the lowest level are municipal guards, who are responsible for keeping order in public places, but are limited in power and are usually not armed. At the state level are the two main forces as maintained by the democratic constitution of 1988 (3), the civil police in charge of investigative, judiciary, and administrative tasks, and the military police responsible for uniformed patrolling of city streets both preventing and repressing crime. Largely absent in day to day ground operations is the federal police, who overlook national interest, guard frontiers, control drug traffic, and serve as a national judiciary force. The federal police is often viewed as the most prestigious and more respected branches of police, usually consisting of better trained and more educated federal …show more content…
In this time for example, torture has been one of the most frequently used interrogation techniques, and in the state of Sao Paulo alone at least 11,692 police involved killings have been reported (3). In other regions of the country the numbers are equally elevated. Most of these deaths remain unaccounted for due to incomplete and unreliable record keeping, and police is rarely held responsible for their actions. The military police is responsible for five times as many homicides as civil police even while accounting for force size, yet remains largely unaccountable to the civilian justice system (4). In a 1992 incident that became known as Casa de Detancao, 111 unarmed prisoners were killed in what was reported as a response to a disturbance in the detention facility (3). Ultimately the number of deaths is largely under reported, but for those that are, the issue of impunity only makes matter worse. The failure to investigate and prosecute police officers creates an imbalance of expectations and cynicism among civilians, many view this as an unacceptable double-standard where those who represent the law and are expected to set a standard are above
Brazil is the sixth largest country in the world with a population of over 202,000,000. In many aspects it is viewed as a regional leader and continues to boast both industrial and agricultural growth, development of its interior, and an ever growing role on the international stage. Brazil gained its independence from Portugal under a monarchial system of government in 1822. This period was followed by a military dictatorship lasting from 1888 to 1985, at which point the military peacefully transitioned power to civilian rulers. Brazil shares many of the challenges faced by other South American countries that have undergone transition from authoritarianism to a democratic government, one being a persistent breach between the principle …show more content…
State authority manifests itself primarily in street-level interactions between civilians and law enforcement officers who lack training, regulation, transparency, and compensation. The Brazilian police is made up of four different branches strategically instrumented to maintain order, while at the same time defining the very idea of it with little guidance or oversight (1). At the lowest level are municipal guards, who are responsible for keeping order in public places, but are limited in power and are usually not armed. At the state level are the two main forces as maintained by the democratic constitution of 1988 (3), the civil police in charge of investigative, judiciary, and administrative tasks, and the military police responsible for uniformed patrolling of city streets both preventing and repressing crime. Largely absent in day to day ground operations is the federal police, who overlook national interest, guard frontiers, control drug traffic, and serve as a national judiciary force. The federal police is often viewed as the most prestigious and more respected branches of police, usually consisting of better trained and more educated federal …show more content…
In this time for example, torture has been one of the most frequently used interrogation techniques, and in the state of Sao Paulo alone at least 11,692 police involved killings have been reported (3). In other regions of the country the numbers are equally elevated. Most of these deaths remain unaccounted for due to incomplete and unreliable record keeping, and police is rarely held responsible for their actions. The military police is responsible for five times as many homicides as civil police even while accounting for force size, yet remains largely unaccountable to the civilian justice system (4). In a 1992 incident that became known as Casa de Detancao, 111 unarmed prisoners were killed in what was reported as a response to a disturbance in the detention facility (3). Ultimately the number of deaths is largely under reported, but for those that are, the issue of impunity only makes matter worse. The failure to investigate and prosecute police officers creates an imbalance of expectations and cynicism among civilians, many view this as an unacceptable double-standard where those who represent the law and are expected to set a standard are above