Search

Police violence in Brazil has long been discussed as a serious issue. In considering the prevalence of police violence in Brazil, previous studies have examined the reasons why police reform has not progressed, often from the perspective that the authoritarian nature of the military regime continues to persist within the police forces. Meanwhile, up to recent years, the number of "deaths resulting from police intervention (mortes decorrentes de intervenção policial: MDIP)" has fluctuated significantly. This fluctuation cannot be solely explained by the stagnation of police reform. Existing theories about the determinants of the number of MDIP refer to the political spectrum of the state governors' parties and the number of police officers killed. However, how these theories manifest in actual state cases has not been examined. The state of Rio de Janeiro is one of the most violent states in Brazil and serves as a crucial case study. Fitting this case within existing theories is difficult. In particular, the period from 2007 to 2018 saw rapid changes in the number of MDIP, with a significant decrease followed by a sharp increase. During this period, Sérgio Cabral and Luiz Fernando Pezão served as state governors, both belonging to the same party named Brazilian Democratic Movement (Movimento Democrático Brasileiro: MDB). Thus, the variation in the number of MDIP cannot be explained by the differences in political parties. This paper examines how public security policies had an impact on the number of MDIP during this period in the state of Rio de Janeiro. The central focus of the discussion is the policy known as the Pacifying Police Unit (Unidade de Polícia Pacificadora: UPP), which was created by Cabral. This policy change led to a decrease in MDIP until 2013. The introduction and subsequent downsizing of the UPP were determined by a comprehensive assessment of factors such as policy effectiveness, public opinion, the federal government's agendas, and the availability of resources. The case of Rio de Janeiro demonstrates the complexity of the process in which the governor decides the public security policy, indicating that the political spectrum of the governor's party was not significant in their decision-making. Furthermore, this case suggests the importance of focusing on public security policies in the debate on the fluctuations in MDIP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]