The echo of slavery: the historical process shaping penal selectivity

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15175/1984-2503-201810307

Keywords:

History, Law, slavery, penal selectivity

Abstract

The following article discusses the historical process shaping penal selectivity in Brazil, with a specific focus on the legal and social circumstances of the population of African descent, represented by hegemonic political and legal thought in a framework of moral and racial disqualification. We restrict our observations to the penal system within urban spaces, analyzing the penal legislations of the Imperial period and those of the early decades of the Republican regime, in light of the transition from the political regime (monarchy to republic) and the abolition of slavery. We locate the emergence of demands for greater penal repression to this period, in the light of an exploitation of a feeling of uncertainty and political fragility. The analysis is guided by a reading of Gaston Bachelard and research into the clash with hegemonic thought, by means of openings, cracks, and breaks in the absolutist and authoritarian thought that characterizes and governs the workings of punitive systems.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Eugeniusz Costa Lopes da Cruz, Universidade Estácio de Sá, Rio de Janeiro, RJ

É doutorando pela UFF (Universidade Federal Fluminense) em Direito e Sociologia. Integrante do Grupo de Pesquisas Laboratório Cidade e Poder, coordenado pela professora doutora Gizlene Neder, vinculado a Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF). Mestre em Direito Público e Evolução Social pela UNESA (CAPES 5), tendo realizado a sua pesquisa como bolsista da CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento Pessoal de Nível Superior). É professor de direito penal na Graduação e Pós-Graduação latusensu da UNESA. 

Published

2018-10-15

How to Cite

Cruz, E. C. L. da. (2018). The echo of slavery: the historical process shaping penal selectivity. Passages: International Review of Political History and Legal Culture, 10(3), 464-484. https://doi.org/10.15175/1984-2503-201810307