IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/crimin/v64y2024i3p538-557..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Between Democratic Modernization and Authoritarian Punitiveness in Brazil: Mass Incarceration, Political Rationalities and the Dynamics of Subnational Variation

Author

Listed:
  • David S Fonseca

Abstract

Since the return to democracy in the 1980s, the Federal government in Brazil promoted the democratic modernization of the criminal justice apparatus. However, the arrival of a post-neoliberal government to the federal administration at the beginning of the century took place simultaneously with the emergence of mass incarceration. Rather than readily blaming their penal policies for this development, the present work addresses aspects of subnational variation and different political rationalities for comprehending this increase in the prison population. The coexistence of neoliberal and post-neoliberal rationalities of governance around the country between 2007 and 2018 corresponded to significantly diverse trends in incarceration at the state level, in which neoliberal governments played a more prominent role. Besides, authoritarian punitiveness has acted as an obstacle to the modernization of crime and punishment practices and institutions throughout this period. The resurgence of authoritarianism as an autonomous political rationality in the 2018 elections reconfigured policies and attitudes in the field, mostly by reversing past modernizing efforts.

Suggested Citation

  • David S Fonseca, 2024. "Between Democratic Modernization and Authoritarian Punitiveness in Brazil: Mass Incarceration, Political Rationalities and the Dynamics of Subnational Variation," The British Journal of Criminology, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, vol. 64(3), pages 538-557.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:crimin:v:64:y:2024:i:3:p:538-557.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/bjc/azad050
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:crimin:v:64:y:2024:i:3:p:538-557.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/bjc .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.