The Pacifying Police Units of the State of Rio de Janeiro (UPPs): Incremental Innovation or Police Reform?

Abstract

This article considers the experience of Unidades de Polícia Pacificadora (UPPs) (Pacifying Police Units) of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, as an innovative form of policing designed to deal primarily with high crime rate in "favelas." It also attempts to ascertain the extent to which the UPPs reflect a strategy for police reform. It does so by (i) reviewing the security crisis which engendered the UPPs as well as their predecessors, describing the socio-economic hardships of the favelas, further aggravated by high crime rates; (ii) describing the institutional and political environment giving rise to the policing policy underpinning the UPPs, and (iii) by assessing this innovation against a backdrop of systemic police reform models, singling out missing elements to constitute a true police system reform. This review provides a record of police policy of successive state governments, showing that the adoption of the UPPs followed a reactive political pattern while falling short of the requirements for proactively deliberate and comprehensive reform. Contrary to most of the guiding reform principles and elements discussed, policing reform in the State of Rio de Janeiro has indeed been bound by innovative incrementalism, following a pendular pattern, with little sustainability and a record of fluctuating achievements.

Dealing with violence: Varied reactions from frontline workers acting in highly vulnerable territories

“…The fight against violence has always been one of the most important governments' agendas since the constitution of the first modern States (based on the idea of concentrating military power) until the present day. The specialized literature on violence has focused on studying this broad phenomenon of how States protect their territories and citizens, and fight crime (Brambilla and Jones, 2019;Bond and Gebo, 2014;Ezcurra, 2017;Marenin, 2014;Pinto and Do Carmo, 2016;Weber, 2012). Some studies have also analyzed specific policies against everyday violence, such as policing practices and social work initiatives to protect women, children, and vulnerable groups (Epp et al, 2017;Frattaroli, 2006;Johansen, 2019;Kyed, 2019;Levenson and D'Amora, 2007;Meier and Nicholson-Crotty, 2006;Nicholson-Croty et al, 2017;van Steden et al, 2015).…”

“…Therefore, even if violence manifests itself as a widespread phenomenon, it occurs in very different ways in different places and is directed against different social groups (Keenan, 2019; Kyed, 2019; Murphy et al., 2018; Pilo, 2019; Pinto and Do Carmo, 2016; Vigneswaran, 2014). Studies have shown how some groups are more subject to situations of violence, mainly based on their race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or neighborhood (Epp et al., 2017; Mawani, 2012; Nicholson-Croty et al., 2017; Reiss and Roth, 1993; Wade-Olson, 2019).…”

“…We consider that (1) the State is a set of heterogeneous actors and institutions, and not a monolithic power (Sharma and Gupta, 2009) ; (2) that it has to dispute its monopoly of violence with other actors (Elias, 1939(Elias, /2000North, 2009); and (3) that it does so within specific territories in which conflicts emerge (Pinto and Do Carmo, 2016;Wacquant et al, 2014;Zittoun, 2014). Applying these definitions to the frontline workers, while some of them are expected to deal directly with situations of violence, such as police officers (Epp et al, 2017;Nicholson-Croty et al, 2017) and those tackling issues such as violence against children or women (Frattaroli and Teret, 2006;Hong, 2016;Levenson and D'Amora, 2007;Morin, 2013;Pauschinger, 2019;Riccucci et al, 2014;Rivera and Ward, 2017).…”