Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:08:15.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Politics of Sentencing Reform in Brazil: Autonomous Bureaucrats, Constrained Politicians and Gradual Policy Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2014

RODRIGO M. NUNES
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Popular attitudes towards crime in Latin America induce local legislators to support harsh sentencing frameworks. What, therefore, explains the adoption of non-prison sentences across the region? Using Brazil as a case study, this article claims that sentencing reform is a consequence of the growing autonomy of bureaucrats who manage the criminal justice system. Insulated from patronage networks and granted broad mandates to pursue solutions to pressing penal crises, these policy elites use their position in the state to develop new rules and facilitate their approval despite popular opposition to measures that limit the state's punitive capacity. The findings point to the importance of bureaucratic autonomy for the enactment of policies that can benefit the underprivileged but do not enjoy widespread support from voters.

Spanish abstract

Las actitudes populares alrededor del crimen en Latinoamérica induce a legisladores locales a apoyar esquemas de sentencias duras. ¿Qué, entonces, explica la adopción de penas sin cárcel a lo largo de la región? Utilizando a Brasil como un caso de estudio, este artículo señala que las reformas son consecuencia de la creciente autonomía de los burócratas que manejan el sistema de justicia penal. Aislados de redes clientelares y con mandatos amplios para encontrar soluciones a crisis penales, sus políticas logran cristalizar gracias a que utilizan su posición en el estado para desarrollar nuevas reglas y facilitar su aprobación pese a la oposición popular a medidas como limitar la capacidad punitiva del estado. Los hallazgos señalan la importancia de la autonomía burocrática para la promulgación de políticas que pueden beneficiar a grupos no privilegiados pero que no cuentan con apoyo generalizado entre los votantes.

Portuguese abstract

Atitudes populares com relação à criminalidade na América Latina induzem legisladores locais a apoiarem um regime de sentenças severas. O que então explica a adoção na região de sentenças não privativas de liberdade? Usando o Brasil como um estudo de caso, este artigo sustenta que a reforma sentencial é uma consequência da autonomia crescente de burocratas que gerenciam o sistema judicial. Longe de redes de patrocínio e com concessão de amplos mandatos para buscar soluções para urgentes crises penais, estas elites burocráticas usam suas posições no estado para criar novas regras e facilitar suas aprovações, a despeito da oposição popular às medidas que limitam a capacidade punitiva do estado. As descobertas apontam para a importância da autonomia burocrática para o estabelecimento de políticas que podem beneficiar os menos privilegiados, mas que não gozam de apoio geral do eleitorado.

Keywords

Brazilsentencing reformbureaucracydrug policyprison overcrowdingBrasilreforma penalburocraciapolítica hacia las drogascárceles saturadasBrasilreforma sentencialburocraciapolíticas de drogassuperlotação carcerária
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , February 2015 , pp. 121 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ungar, Mark, ‘Prisons and Politics in Latin America’, Human Rights Quarterly, 25: 4 (2003), pp. 916–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Ungar, Mark, ‘Crime and Citizen Security in Latin America’, in Hershberg, Eric and Rosen, Fred (eds.), Latin America after Neoliberalism (New York: The New Press/NACLA, 2006), pp. 174–8Google Scholar.

3 Data from Walmsley, Roy, World Prison Population List (10th edition, London: International Centre for Prison Studies, 2013)Google Scholar.

4 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas (Washington, DC: Organization of American States, 2011), pp. 156–65Google Scholar.

5 Weaver, Vesla M., Hacker, Jacob S. and Wildeman, Christopher, ‘Detaining Democracy? Criminal Justice and American Civic Life’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 651: 1 (2014), pp. 6–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Wacquant, Loïc, ‘Toward a Dictatorship of the Poor? Notes on the Penalization of Poverty in Brazil’, Punishment and Society, 5: 2 (2003), pp. 197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Garland, David, ‘The Limits of the Sovereign State: Strategies of Crime Control in Contemporary Society’, The British Journal of Criminology, 36: 4 (1996), pp. 444–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Grindle, Merilee S. and Thomas, John W., Public Choices and Policy Change: The Political Economy of Reform in Developing Democracies (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), pp. 32–3Google Scholar.

9 Macaulay, Fiona, ‘Knowledge Production, Framing and Criminal Justice Reform in Latin America’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 39: 3 (2007), pp. 627–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Geddes, Barbara, ‘Building State Autonomy in Brazil, 1930–1964’, Comparative Politics, 22: 2 (1990), pp. 217–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Fukuyama, Francis, ‘What Is Governance?’, Governance, 26: 3 (2013), pp. 356–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 In fact, if bureaucrats do not develop the ‘embedded autonomy’ that Evans identifies they may not accumulate sufficient information and resources to promote their projects. See Evans, Peter, Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

13 Garland, ‘The Limits of the Sovereign State’.

14 Ibid., p. 456.

15 Data accessible at www.latinobarometro.org. Latin Americans believed that the only policy more effective at combating crime than harsher penalties was an increase in the number of policemen. All internet references were last checked in May 2014.

16 Caldeira, Teresa and Holston, James, ‘Democracy and Violence in Brazil’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 41: 4 (1999), pp. 691–729Google Scholar; Rodley, Nigel S., ‘Torture and Conditions of Detention in Latin America’, in Méndez, Juan. E., O'Donnell, Guillermo and Pinheiro, Paulo Sérgio (eds.), The (Un)Rule of Law and the Underprivileged in Latin America (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999), pp. 25–41Google Scholar; Godoy, Angelina Snodgrass, ‘Democracy, “Mano Dura,” and the Criminalization of Politics’, in May, Rachel and Milton, Andrew (eds.), (Un)Civil Societies: Human Rights and Democratic Transitions in Eastern Europe and Latin America (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), pp. 109–37Google Scholar.

17 Bateson, Regina, ‘Crime Victimization and Political Participation’, American Political Science Review, 106: 3 (2012), pp. 570–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chevigny, Paul, ‘The Populism of Fear: Politics of Crime in the Americas’, Punishment and Society, 5: 1 (2003), pp. 77–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Smulovitz, Catalina, ‘Citizen Insecurity and Fear: Public and Private Responses in Argentina’, in Frühling, Hugo and Tulchin, Joseph S. (eds.), Crime and Violence in Latin America (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2003), pp. 130–1Google Scholar.

19 Keck, Margaret E. and Sikkink, Kathryn, Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998)Google Scholar.

20 Langer, Máximo, ‘Revolution in Latin American Criminal Procedure: Diffusion of Legal Ideas from the Periphery’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 55 (2007), pp. 617–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Salla, Fernando, Ballesteros, Paula Rodriguez, Espinoza, Olga, Martínez, Fernando, Livachky, Paula and Museri, Anabella, Democracy, Human Rights, and Prison Conditions in South America (Geneva: Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, 2009), pp. 79–85Google Scholar.

21 See Yashar, Deborah J., ‘Globalization and Collective Action’, Comparative Politics, 34: 3 (2002), pp. 355–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Yashar, Deborah J., ‘The Left and Citizenship Rights’, in Levitski, Steven and Roberts, Kenneth (eds.), The Resurgence of the Latin American Left (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011), pp. 184–212Google Scholar.

23 Yashar, ‘The Left and Citizenship Rights’.

24 It is worth noting that it is becoming unclear whether party ideology remains a crucial factor in facilitating the adoption of alternatives to incarceration. Right-wing parties have been traditionally more likely to support harsh penal rules, but recent attitude changes in the United States suggest that even conservative politicians can be convinced that such an approach is counterproductive. See, for example, Richard A. Viguerie, ‘A Conservative Case for Prison Reform’, New York Times, 10 June 2013, p. A23.

25 Wacquant, Loïc, Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Ibid., pp. 300–1.

27 Fajnzylber, Pablo, Lederman, Daniel and Loayza, Norman, Crímen y violencia en América Latina (Bogotá: Alfaomega/World Bank, 2001)Google Scholar; Wacquant, ‘Toward a Dictatorship of the Poor?’

28 For a criticism of Wacquant's argument along these lines, see Macaulay, Fiona, ‘Justice Sector and Human Rights Reform under the Cardoso Government’, Latin American Perspectives, 34: 5 (2007), pp. 26–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Campbell, John L., ‘Neoliberalism's Penal and Debtor States: A Rejoinder to Loïc Wacquant’, Theoretical Criminology, 14: 1 (2010), pp. 62–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Marcelo da Silveira Campos, ‘Crime e congresso nacional no Brasil pós-1988: uma análise da política criminal aprovada de 1989 a 2006’, unpubl. PhD diss., Unicamp, 2010.

30 Human Rights Watch, Behind Bars in Brazil (New York: Human Rights Watch, 1998)Google Scholar; International BAR Association, One in Five: The Crisis in Brazil's Prisons and Criminal Justice System (London: IBA, 2010)Google Scholar; dos Deputados, Câmara, CPI do sistema carcerário: relatório final (Brasília: Câmara dos Deputados, 2008)Google Scholar.

31 Data from da Justiça, Ministério, Censo penitenciário de 1995 (Brasília: Ministério da Justiça and Conselho Nacional de Política Criminal e Penitenciária, 1996)Google Scholar; and Infopen – electronic database on prisons of the Brazilian Ministry of Justice (available at http://portal.mj.gov.br/depen).

32 Câmara dos Deputados, CPI do sistema carcerário, pp. 363–9.

33 Waiselfisz, Julio Jacobo, Homicídios e juventude no Brasil: mapa da violência 2013 (Brasília: Presidência da República, 2013)Google Scholar.

34 Wacquant, ‘Towards a Dictatorship of the Poor?’.

35 de Paiva, Luis Guilherme Mendes, A fábrica de penas (Rio de Janeiro: Revan, 2009)Google Scholar.

36 CNI-IBOPE, Retratos da sociedade brasileira: segurança pública (October 2011), available at www.portaldaindustria.com.br/cni/publicacoes-e-estatisticas/publicacoes/2012/07/1,5387/seguranca-publica.html. It must be noted that respondents also approved of alternative sentencing for non-serious crimes when directly asked about it. But, as seen below, general support for these measures does not create political pressures as strong as those for tougher penalties.

37 Secretaria de Pesquisa e Opinião Pública, Pesquisa de opinião pública nacional: violência no Brasil (Brasília: Senado Federal, 2007)Google Scholar.

38 Mendes de Paiva, A fábrica de penas, pp. 115–31.

39 Data from Marcelo da Silveira Campos, ‘Crime e congresso nacional no Brasil pós-1988’.

40 See da Silveira Campos, ‘Crime e congresso nacional no Brasil pós-1988’.

41 Frade, Laura, Quem mandamos para a prisão? Visões do parlamento brasileiro sobre a criminalidade (Brasília: Liber, 2008), pp. 95–7Google Scholar.

42 Nalayne Mendonça Pinto, ‘Penas e alternativas: um estudo dos processos de agravamento das penas e de despenalização no sistema de criminalização brasileiro (1984–2004)’, unpubl. PhD diss., Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, 2006, pp. 103–12.

43 Macaulay, ‘Knowledge Production’.

44 Keck and Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders, pp. 12–13.

45 Leeds, Elizabeth, Civil Society and Citizen Security in Brazil: A Fragile but Evolving Relationship (Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 2013)Google Scholar.

46 Keck and Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders, pp. 26–8.

47 Ibid., p. 29.

48 Presidents may also rely on clientelistic practices to gather support from individual legislators. See Raile, Eric D., Carlos Pereira and Timothy Power, ‘The Executive Toolbox: Building Legislative Support in a Multiparty Presidential Regime’, Political Research Quarterly, 64: 2 (2010), pp. 1–12Google Scholar.

49 Alston, Lee J., Melo, Marcus André, Mueller, Bernardo and Pereira, Carlos, Political Institutions, Policy-making Processes and Policy Outcomes in Brazil (Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank, 2006)Google Scholar.

50 Data from da Silveira Campos, ‘Crime e congresso nacional no Brasil pós-1988’.

51 Brazil's federal bureaucratic system is composed of various Cargos de Direção e Assessoramento Superiores (High-Level Execution and Advisory Offices, DAS), organised in a hierarchical structure. Cabinet members such as the justice minister nominate DAS levels 1 through 4, but the president retains control over nominations to the more important DAS levels 5 and 6. The heads of the SAL and SNJ are both level 6 officers. On Brazil's bureaucratic structure, see D'Araújo, Maria Celina, A elite dirigente do governo Lula (Rio de Janeiro: CPDOC/FGV, 2009)Google Scholar.

52 Fukuyama, ‘What Is Governance?’, pp. 359–60.

53 As argued elsewhere, bureaucrats who pursue connections with society often do so to strengthen their position vis-à-vis elected officials. See Carpenter, Daniel, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

54 Geddes, Barbara, Politician's Dilemma: Building State Capacity in Latin America (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

55 Loureiro, Maria Rita and Abrucio, Fernando, ‘Política e burocracia no presidencialismo brasileiro: o papel do ministério da fazenda no primeiro governo Fernando Henrique Cardoso’, Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, 14: 41 (1999), pp. 69–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Durand, Maria Rita Loureiro and Abrucio, Fernando Luiz, Burocracia e política na nova ordem democrática brasileira: o provimento de cargos no alto escalão do governo federal (governos Sarney, Collor, Itamar Franco e FHC) (Rio de Janeiro: Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo/Fundação Getúlio Vargas/Núcleo de Pesquisas e Publicações, 1998), pp. 42–5Google Scholar.

57 Loureiro and Abrucio, ‘Política e burocracia no presidencialismo brasileiro’, pp. 77–8.

58 Macaulay, Fiona, Political and Institutional Challenges of Reforming the Brazilian Prison System, Centre for Brazilian Studies Working Paper CBS 31–2002 (July 2002), p. 14Google Scholar; email interview with Elizabeth Sussekind, national secretary of justice during the second Cardoso administration, 16 Jan. 2014.

59 Interview with Elizabeth Sussekind, 16 Jan. 2014.

60 Telephone interview with Sandra Valle, national secretary of justice during the first Cardoso administration, 21 Jan. 2014.

61 Leeds, Civil Society and Citizen Security in Brazil.

62 Sandra Boccia, ‘Entrevista: José Carlos Dias’, O Globo, 19 July 1999, p. 3; Débora Ribeiro, ‘Advogado prepara reforma da justiça: Oscar Vilhena tem carta branca do ministro Dias para formular projetos’, O Globo, 12 Sep. 1999, p. 17.

63 Catia Seabra and Monica Torres Maia, ‘Proposta de Dias divide o governo’, O Globo, 27 Sep., 1999, p. 3; Vannildo Mendes and Adriana Vasconcelos, ‘Teses polêmicas deram inimigos ao ministro’, O Globo, 12 April 2000, p. 5.

64 Mendonça Pinto, ‘Penas e alternativas’, pp. 103–12.

65 Ministério da Justiça, Censo penitenciário de 1995.

66 Lemgruber, Julita, ‘Pena alternativa: cortando a verba da pós-graduação no crime’, in Alvito, Marcos and Velho, Gilberto (eds.), Cidadania e violência (Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ/Fundação Getúlio Vargas, 1996), p. 83Google Scholar.

67 Brasil, Diário da Câmara dos Deputados, 52: 25 (Brasília: Senado Federal, 1997), p. 21199.

68 Mendes de Paiva, A fábrica de penas, pp. 116–17.

69 See Brasil, Diário da Câmara dos Deputados, 52: 130 (Brasília: Senado Federal, 1997), p. 4484 for the official proposal and its justification.

70 Interview with Julita Lemgruber, former director of Rio de Janeiro's prison system and former member of the CNPCP, Rio de Janeiro, 4 July 2011. On the CNPCP prior to Cardoso, see Macaulay, Political and Institutional Challenges, p. 15.

71 Human Rights Watch, Behind Bars in Brazil, pp. 29–30.

72 Schwind, Hans Dieter, Ferreira, Ivette Senise and de Azevedo Marques, João Benedicto, Penas alternativas, paper no. 28 (São Paulo: Centro de Estudos Fundação Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, 1996)Google Scholar.

73 Ministério da Justiça, Censo penitenciário de 1995.

74 Netto, Vladimir, ‘Celeiro de feras’, Veja, 29: 43 (1996), pp. 50–1Google Scholar.

75 Nelson Jobim, ‘Penas alternativas: pontos para reflexão’, O Globo, 3 April 1996, p. 7.

76 As the former head of the SNJ stated, the ministers who followed Jobim granted bureaucrats some leeway in the pursuit of projects but had to be convinced of their potential. Interview with Sandra Valle, 21 Jan. 2014.

77 Lemgruber, Julita and Paiva, Anabela, A dona das chaves: uma mulher no comando das prisões do Rio de Janeiro (Rio de Janeiro: Record, 2010), pp. 255–60Google Scholar.

78 Adriana Vasconcelos, ‘FH sanciona lei que amplia as penas alternativas’, O Globo, 26 Nov. 1998, p. 9.

79 Human Rights Watch, Behind Bars in Brazil, p. 31.

80 A request of urgency requires Congress to vote on a bill within 45 days. On the secret vote, see ‘Câmara aprova penas alternativas’, Folha de São Paulo, 24 July 1997, 3o Caderno, p. 3.

81 Weyland, Kurt, Madrid, Raúl L. and Hunter, Wendy (eds.), Leftist Governments in Latin America: Successes and Shortcomings (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 Hunter, Wendy, The Transformation of the Workers’ Party in Brazil, 1989–2009 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 159–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83 D'Araujo, A elite dirigente, chap. 2.

84 Praça, Sérgio, Andréa Freitas and Bruno Hoepers, ‘Political Appointments and Coalition Management in Brazil, 2007–2010’, Journal of Politics in Latin America, 3: 2 (2011), pp. 141–72Google Scholar.

85 Ibid.

86 Katherine Bersch, Sérgio Praça and Matthew Taylor, ‘An Archipelago of Excellence? Autonomous State Capacity among Brazilian Federal Agencies’, unpubl. manuscript, 2012, available at http://cepesp.fgv.br/pt-br/node/453.

87 Interview with Luis Eduardo Soares, former national public security adviser for the Lula administration, Brasília, 13 July 2011.

88 Interview with Pedro Abramovay, former director of the SAL, Rio de Janeiro, 28 June 2011.

89 Washington Office on Latin America, Systems Overload: Drug Laws and Prisons in Latin America (Washington, DC: Transnational Institute/Washington Office on Latin America, 2011)Google Scholar.

90 Ministério da Justiça, Censo penitenciário de 1995.

91 Data from Infopen.

92 Boiteux, Luciana et al. , Tráfico de drogas e Constituição (Brasília: Ministério da Justiça, 2009)Google Scholar.

93 de Jesus, Maria Gorete Marques et al. , Prisão provisória e lei de drogas (São Paulo: Núcleos de Estudo da Violência da USP, 2011)Google Scholar.

94 Zaluar, Alba, ‘A criminalização das drogas e o reencantamento do mal’, in Zaluar, Alba (ed.), Drogas e cidadania: repressão ou redução de riscos (São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1994)Google Scholar.

95 Brasil, Diário da Câmara dos Deputados, 57: 32 (Brasília: Senado Federal, 2002), pp. 955–6.

96 Interview with Rodrigo Duque Estrada Roig, member of the CNPCP, Rio de Janeiro, 8 July 2011.

97 Boiteux et al., Tráfico de drogas e Constituição.

98 Interview with Luciana Boiteaux, primary investigator, Tráfico de drogas e Constituição, Rio de Janeiro, 30 June 2011.

99 Interview with Pedro Abramovay, 28 June 2011.

100 The commission's debate took place on 11 Nov. 2009: see www.senado.gov.br/atividade/comissoes/comissao.asp?origem=SF&com=34.

101 A recent interview with the new director is available at http://g1.globo.com/brasil/noticia/2013/04/trafico-e-crime-que-mais-prende-e-isso-e-lamentavel-diz-novo-secretario.html.

102 Representative Osmar Terra delivered this speech on 2 April 2013: see www.camara.gov.br/internet/sitaqweb/pesquisaDiscursos.asp.

103 Open Society and UNDP, The Socioeconomic Impact of Pre-Trial Detention (New York: Open Society Foundation, 2010)Google Scholar.

104 Data from Infopen.

105 Abramovay, Pedro, ‘Apresentação’, in Maria Thereza Rocha de Assis Moura (coord.), As reformas no processo penal: as novas leis de 2008 e os projetos de reforma (São Paulo: Editora RT, 2008), pp. 8–11Google Scholar.

106 Abramovay, ‘Apresentação’.

107 Interview with Marivaldo Pereira, director of the SAL, Brasília, 14 July 2011.

108 Interviews with Marivaldo Pereira (14 July 2011), Luis Guilherme Paiva, former member of SAL, Brasília (11 July 2011) and Fernanda Machiaveli, congressional lobbyist for the Sou da Paz institute, Brasília (14 July 2011).

109 Interview with Helena Malzoni, director of Sou da Paz, São Paulo, 19 July 2011.

110 Interview with Fernanda Machiaveli, 14 July 2011.

111 Interviews with Marivaldo Pereira (14 July 2011), Fernanda Machiaveli (14 July 2011) and Helena Malzoni (19 July 2011).

112 O'Donnell, Guillermo, ‘On the State, Democratization, and Some Conceptual Problems: A Latin American View with Glances at Some Postcommunist Countries’, World Development, 21: 8 (1993), pp. 1355–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

113 Guillermo O'Donnell, ‘On the State, Democratization, and Some Conceptual Problems’.

114 Ames, Barry, Carreras, Miguel and Schwartz, Cassilde, ‘What's Next? Reflections on the Future of Latin American Political Science’, in Kingstone, Peter and Yashar, Deborah J. (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Latin American Politics (New York: Routledge, 2012), p. 491Google Scholar.

115 Hagopian, Frances, ‘Conclusions: Government Performance, Political Representation, and Public Perceptions of Contemporary Democracy in Latin America’, in Hagopian, Frances and Mainwaring, Scott P. (eds.), The Third Wave of Democratization in Latin America: Advances and Setbacks (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 347–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

116 Macaulay, ‘Knowledge Production’.

117 Garland, ‘The Limits of the Sovereign State’, p. 456.

118 After the congressional approval of alternatives to pre-trial incarceration in 2011, for example, Brazil's Associação para a Reforma Prisonal (Association for Prison Reform, ARP), with support from the Open Society Foundation, developed a research project to assess the law's implementation at the local level. It would be valuable to explore whether and how state actors rely on such research to bolster their reformist projects. See Lemgruber, Julita, Fernandes, Márcia, Cano, Ignacio and Musumeci, Leonarda, Usos e abusos da prisão provisória no Rio de Janeiro (Rio de Janeiro: ARP, CESEC and Universidade Cândido Mendes, 2013)Google Scholar. The ARP was formed in 2003.