Police deadly force as social control: Jamaica, Argentina, and Brazil

Conclusion

When we consider a variety of indicators concerning the disproportionate use of deadly force by police-the ratio of civilians killed to those wounded, the ratio of civilians killed to police killed, and the ratio of police killings to the total homicide rate-the statistics, both official and unofficial, for Jamaica, Buenos Aires, São Paulo, and Rio de Janeiro all point toward the conclusion that the police are summarily executing suspects in routine, non-partisan cases. Directed almost exclusively against anonymous, poor people, this abuse of deadly force appears as an extreme form of coercive social control. When the threat of social unrest seems high--because of increased social mobilization together with increased economic misery--the police may summarily execute a large number of suspects, providing that both elite and lower-class opinion tolerates the executions as legitimate. In all these locations, while opinion is split, the police violence is minimally acceptable; indeed, the prevalence of private vigilantism signals its acceptability with the mass of people.

Nonetheless, because Jamaica, Argentina, and Brazil are liberal states, it is difficult to view police homicides as legitimate except under the rubric of crime control and under the rule of law. Accordingiy, virtually all police killings are justified to the public as acts of self-defense, typically in the context of shoot-outs. This justification appears to be essential for organizing public opinion even though, for at least some people at all socioeconomic levels, summary executions, like vigilantism, are considered the proper punishment for alleged crimes. Experience in other countries suggests that it is possible for the authorities to limit and even prevent police violence. This effort will not be made in Jamaica, Argentina, or Brazil, however, so long as police use of deadly force constitutes a means of social control acceptable to both elite and mass opinion.