Violence in Sao Paulo

[blackheart]

Interesting turn of events in Brazil, an indication of bigger things to come?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4774185.stm

 

[bhsup]

Here's a Wiki link for that PCC group.

Frightening to think of a criminal group having that much power.

 

[luiz]

Over 100 people died, it was quite awful. But this thread is a bit late isn't it?

IMO the solution is not that complex. Federal prisons in isolated locations, where the faction leaders have no contact whatsoever with the outside world. Repeal our criminal-loving laws that forbid placing criminals in isolation for more than one year.

The current state of affairs, where criminals run their empires from prison with cell phones, is a disgrace. Our imbecile laws forbid seacrhing lawyers, so they take cell phones to the prisoners. Seriously sometimes I get the feeling that our Constitution was written by criminals, for criminals. Fredlc will certainly dislike this comment, but it is the truth. The overwhelming majority of brazilians want tougher actions against criminals, but the criminal political class does not.

 

[FredLC]

Well, I think that the problems is not the law, but the fact that the law is not being observed.

Look at our jails. Over-crowded cells, impossible to inspect as a routine; poorly paid guards, that are extra-tempted by bribery from criminals.

Look at our law enforcement. Criminals don't believe they will be punished, wheter harshly or lightly. How will punish anything with castration solve anything, if thughs don't think they will be caught?

Don't get me started in political and sociological problems.

The problem is institutional. Or better, un-institutional. Our institutions don't work. While this remains true, no legislation changes will solve anything. Reality is stronger than the congress.

Regards .

 

[Che Guava]

The problem is institutional. Or better, un-institutional. Our institutions don't work. While this remains true, no legislation changes will solve anything. Reality is stronger than the congress.

Regards .

Oy! what a dire outlook! Any idea of what Brazil (and the rest of the world) should be doing?

 

[FredLC]

If I had the solution, I'd be running for president this year.

The violence we are experiencing is result of mismanagement and corruption, true, but also of historical contingences, specially the confuse urbanization processes of the 30s and 60/70s. The criminals today are the children and grandchildren of those who came from the rural areas to make a better living at the cities, and didn't manage to do it.

Unfortunately, I don't see a short term solution to it. This is not a "problem", which can have a clear even if painful solution; it is a dillemma. Solving it will take time for society to rearrange itself. No politician, from whatever side of the spectrum, can give it a satisfactory immediate solution - granted, though, that they can facilitate or halt the healing process.

Regards .

 

[Che Guava]

Ah...one of those problems that has no real solution, save the truly terrible!

 

[blackheart]

Ah...one of those problems that has no real solution, save the truly terrible!

Revolution?

 

[Pyrite]

How could revolution be a solution when the problem is not simply governmental corruption? It's a dearth of alternatives to drugs and gangs, both for safety and for wealth. You don't solve a lack of things by killing people.

 

[Che Guava]

How could revolution be a solution when the problem is not simply governmental corruption? It's a dearth of alternatives to drugs and gangs, both for safety and for wealth. You don't solve a lack of things by killing people.

No, but you do need les 'things' when you have less people

 

[luiz]

There is a short term solution. It is possible to dramatically reduce astronomical crime rates within a decade.
Look at Bogotá. 10 years ago it had 3 times more murders per 100,000 inhabitants than Rio, now it has between 1/3 and 1/2. And they didn't achieve this with some sociological mumbo-jumbo.

They simply took law inforcement seriously. They invested heavily in intelligence and infiltrated in the FARCs, the ELN, and the para-military groups. They placed the leaders of the factions isolated from their groups and, most importantly, without any communication with the external world. And they made sure that the bastards would spend the rest of their useful life behind bars.

Today in Brazil the criminal scum can run their gangs with cell phones that their lawyers give them, and our idiotic law forbids searching lawyers (they only go through metal-detectors). Don't you think this Law is criminal-loving, Fred? Don't you think it has to go?

Notice that Colombia achieved this without a substancial increase in education or quality of life or income distribution. Criminality may be influenced by those factors, but they are not determinant. We must get rid of this imbecile mentality and begin solving the problems with the means avaiable. We live in a poor, uneducated society with high income inequality. We want all those things to change, but we don't have to wait for that to fix the criminality issue that is turning our country into a warzone. Rampant criminality can be solved, and it shouldn't take decades. Sociologists may say otherwise, but sociologists are full of sh!t.

 

[blackheart]

Luiz, I think sociologists suggest education and whatnot as part of the solution because they assume that the police are actually doing their jobs beforehand. But in your case, the police are corrupt, the government is corrupt, and nothing is happening.

 

[luiz]

Luiz, I think sociologists suggest education and whatnot as part of the solution because they assume that the police are actually doing their jobs beforehand. But in your case, the police are corrupt, the government is corrupt, and nothing is happening.

Sociologists go to national TV and say that "only education and income distribution" can solve criminality, that Law enforcement can't do anything more, etc. I have nothing against education, but that is BS as was demonstrated by Colombia and other places.

If we stick to the "the problem can only be solved in many many decades" mentality than nothing will happen and in some decades everyone with some money will either live in a fortress or in Miami. Those without money will live in brazilian version of Baghdad.

We need competent law enforcement, we need decent laws, and we need it now.

Edit: I should also mention that the criminality issue in Brazil was actually greatly aggravated by the sociologists and their like who were in jail back in the military regime. They shared cells with common criminals, and had the "great" idea that by teaching those criminals guerilla tactics, cell structure, and etc they would actually embrace the "Revolution". That is why the main criminal faction of Rio is called "Red Commando", it was originally supposed to be a communist revolutionary group. Of course as soon as they got off jail they forgot all the marxist crap they had learned and sticked to the guerilla tactics.
This interesting piece of trivia is seldom mentioned in the brazilian media, because the idiots who trained the criminals are now the politicians running the country.

 

[FredLC]

There is a short term solution. It is possible to dramatically reduce astronomical crime rates within a decade.
Look at Bogotá. 10 years ago it had 3 times more murders per 100,000 inhabitants than Rio, now it has between 1/3 and 1/2. And they didn't achieve this with some sociological mumbo-jumbo.

They simply took law inforcement seriously. They invested heavily in intelligence and infiltrated in the FARCs, the ELN, and the para-military groups. They placed the leaders of the factions isolated from their groups and, most importantly, without any communication with the external world. And they made sure that the bastards would spend the rest of their useful life behind bars.

Look at the first sentence of the second paragraph: they took law enforcement seriously. Why don’t we, instead of making more harsh laws right now, first try to enforce the ones we already have? We can’t dismiss them without trying.

The tools are already here, we just don’t use them. Simply, I think the action you are advocating may or may not be appropriate – but it certainly is ahead of the proper time.

I agree that law enforcement must be taken more seriously. This does not signify draconian punishment, though.

Today in Brazil the criminal scum can run their gangs with cell phones that their lawyers give them, and our idiotic law forbids searching lawyers (they only go through metal-detectors). Don't you think this Law is criminal-loving, Fred? Don't you think it has to go?

No, it is actually civil rights loving. Not all lawyers do that, and, in fact, most don’t. These are free people, doing a job. Why should they be searched like criminals? Because of the few ones among them who do wrong?

If we had proper cells, in which the meetings happen in controlled conditions, if the prisioner were researched after these meetings before returning to the cells, if we had proper survaillance of the prisional conditions – all of them administrative measures, not “sociological mumbo-jumbo”, we’d have the same result, whitout having to constrict people which aren’t under arrest.

Notice that Colombia achieved this without a substancial increase in education or quality of life or income distribution. Criminality may be influenced by those factors, but they are not determinant. We must get rid of this imbecile mentality and begin solving the problems with the means avaiable. We live in a poor, uneducated society with high income inequality. We want all those things to change, but we don't have to wait for that to fix the criminality issue that is turning our country into a warzone. Rampant criminality can be solved, and it shouldn't take decades. Sociologists may say otherwise, but sociologists are full of sh!t.

Repression can help, but can’t solve. I gues that is the sociologist’s point. Anyway, if you read my post, you’ll see that the first and most improtant factor I raised wasn’t “sociological mumbo jumbo”, as you call it, but the fragorous failure that are our institutions.

I don’t know about Colombia’s law… but Brazil’s need not be reformed; just to be applied. We here in Brazil have this delusional dream that making laws solve things. Remember the law of hideous crimes? Solved nothing. The administrative probity law? Solved nothing.

Than people talk time and time again of reforming processual law, like it’s the number of appeals that is troublesome… not the fact that judges, who have deadlines of ten days to deliver a sentence of a concluded process, takes something between 1 and 4 years to do it. And the solution, instead of granting the number of judges necessary to deal with the demand, is to hurt due process with “simplified” (simplistic) procedures that threaten full access to justice. And everybody clap hands and cheer over this silliness.

And now, same here – "crime is high because laws are bad". THIS IS NOT THE REASON. Changing laws will do NOTHING if we don’t apply them. And if we should start doing just that, than let’s try the laws we already have, which aren’t too bad to begin with.

Regards .

 

[luiz]

The tools are already here, we just don’t use them. Simply, I think the action you are advocating may or may not be appropriate – but it certainly is ahead of the proper time.

I agree that law enforcement must be taken more seriously. This does not signify draconian punishment, though.

Of course I agree that number one priority should be enforce the existing laws. But I insist that it is necessary to isolate the heads of the criminal factions and keep them that way indefinately, what is currently forbidden. This is not draconians and is entirely necessary.

No, it is actually civil rights loving. Not all lawyers do that, and, in fact, most don’t. These are free people, doing a job. Why should they be searched like criminals? Because of the few ones among them who do wrong?

If we had proper cells, in which the meetings happen in controlled conditions, if the prisioner were researched after these meetings before returning to the cells, if we had proper survaillance of the prisional conditions – all of them administrative measures, not “sociological mumbo-jumbo”, we’d have the same result, whitout having to constrict people which aren’t under arrest.

Come on, Fred!
When lawyers(and everybody else) goes to Maracanã they get searched. When they go to an airport they may get searched. When they go to nightclubs they get searched. Do they complain? Nope.

So why do they complain about beign searched in prisons?

Fact is we don't have decent cells, and a very simple procedure that is in no way unusual could help to dramatically reduce the contact that criminals in prison have with the outside world.

It seems to me almost as if this law was specifically designed to aid criminals. This is good exemple of necessay law reform.

Repression can help, but can’t solve. I gues that is the sociologist’s point. Anyway, if you read my post, you’ll see that the first and most improtant factor I raised wasn’t “sociological mumbo jumbo”, as you call it, but the fragorous failure that are our institutions.

I don’t know about Colombia’s law… but Brazil’s need not be reformed; just to be applied. We here in Brazil have this delusional dream that making laws solve things. Remember the law of hideous crimes? Solved nothing. The administrative probity law? Solved nothing.

Than people talk time and time again of reforming processual law, like it’s the number of appeals that is troublesome… not the fact that judges, who have deadlines of ten days to deliver a sentence of a concluded process, takes something between 1 and 4 years to do it. And the solution, instead of granting the number of judges necessary to deal with the demand, is to hurt due process with “simplified” (simplistic) procedures that threaten full access to justice. And everybody clap hands and cheer over this silliness.

And now, same here – "crime is high because laws are bad". THIS IS NOT THE REASON. Changing laws will do NOTHING if we don’t apply them. And if we should start doing just that, than let’s try the laws we already have, which aren’t too bad to begin with.

Regards .

The way I see it, the Laws ARE bad and are not beign enforced. Of course I agree that without enforcing the existing laws it would make little sense to reform them, that's why I said we must take law enforcement seriously. BUT we must also change our laws that give criminals too many opportunities to screw us all.

 

[FredLC]

Of course I agree that number one priority should be enforce the existing laws. But I insist that it is necessary to isolate the heads of the criminal factions and keep them that way indefinately, what is currently forbidden. This is not draconians and is entirely necessary.

With this, I agree. These people must be isolated.

The problem lies within the constitution, which forbiddens any kind of perpetual punishment - like the indefinite isolation of criminals. The problems is also in the constitution, in the sense that it forbiddens cruel punishment, and complete isolation IS cruel punishment.

I always favored a compromise, where visits should be limited to the relatives (supervised), legal counseling (unsupervised, due to possible necessity of complains against the guards) and conjugal visits (unsupervised, but conditioned to previous search of the wife/husband).

The difference between the conjugal visitis and legal counseling is that getting a conjugal visit is a privilege, while having legal counseling is a right; and the fact that conjugal visits pressuposes the existence of isolated quarters where the search can be conducted, which isn't true when we speak of legal counseling.

Should this be adopted, added with the searching of the prisioner after encounters, and I think we would have quite a secure system running.

Come on, Fred!
When lawyers(and everybody else) goes to Maracanã they get searched. When they go to an airport they may get searched. When they go to nightclubs they get searched. Do they complain? Nope.

So why do they complain about beign searched in prisons?

First, these aren't controled environments, when a prison (supposedly) is; second, attending these places is voluntary, while going to prison to visit the inmates is a necessity.

Finally, perhaps they should complain. I am an individual without ANY kind of record. Nobody ever filed even a law case against me. To tell the truth, the only time I've had an official reprimand was a traffic ticket, for picking up my cell phone in traffic (what, BTW, I don't usuallydo - that time was an exception in which I was waiting a very important call). Why should I submit to being searched by people who with all possibility don't have a file as clean as mine?

I understand it is a pragmatic measure, that can't be eficiently done in other ways - and that is the ONLY reason I submit to searches when I go to airports and such. But this isn't true in prisions. Searching the inmate after the interview will grant the very same effect as searching the lawyer before it. Hence, the authorities should search them - and, if an iten is found, THEN arrest the lawyer who brought it.

Fact is we don't have decent cells, and a very simple procedure that is in no way unusual could help to dramatically reduce the contact that criminals in prison have with the outside world.

But tell me - how is that procedure simpler than searching the inmate before returning him to the cell? Really, how, exactly?

It seems to me almost as if this law was specifically designed to aid criminals. This is good exemple of necessay law reform.

No. As it happens with human rights in general, criminals abuse rights designed to help citzens guarantee their freedom and dignity in order to keep violating the law. Undignifying professinal disgraces as lawyers who bring illegal cell phones to jails abusing the inviolability of their bodies and documents are in pair with well-known corrupts who remain free for lack of evidence - but just like we don't put them in jail without getting the evidence first, we can't search the professionals if we don't have cause to do so.

Submiting citizens which aren't under arrest to searches as a condition so so they can do their jobs may not be as dramatic as sending people to jail without evidence, but it is the same ball game, Luiz.

The way I see it, the Laws ARE bad and are not beign enforced. Of course I agree that without enforcing the existing laws it would make little sense to reform them, that's why I said we must take law enforcement seriously. BUT we must also change our laws that give criminals too many opportunities to screw us all.

I say they aren't. Minor adjustments could be welcomed, but nothing too dramatic, at least until we know they truly don't work even if implemented.

I'm not saying that our laws are perfect, you see... just that we don't need a change in the philosophy of criminal legislation to change criminality in our nation. The problem lies elsewhere.

Regards .