Between the Police and the Policies: critical-feminist analysis of the Maria da Penha Law and the Measures of Protection of Judicial Urgency
Name: EMILLY MARQUES TENORIO
Publication date: 06/06/2017
Advisor:
Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| LÍVIA DE CÁSSIA GODOI MORAES | Co-advisor * |
Examining board:
| Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| LÍVIA DE CÁSSIA GODOI MORAES | Co advisor * |
Summary: We analyzed the role of the judiciary, specifically in the Brazilian State of Espírito Santo, and the application of restraining orders (ROs) in coping with one of the forms of violence suffered by women in our racist capitalist patriarchal society: domestic and family violence. We studied Law 11.340/2006, known as the Maria da Penha Law (MPL), focusing on the social protection granted to these women through a judicial process, and not only on its technical and legal aspects. We performed documentary research in RO requisition processes, pointed out by key informants at the Specialized Court of the capital, with the intention of identifying the direction given to the orders. Using historical dialectical materialism as a method of analysis, we sought to present the story of many "Marias", in order to present elements of these women's concrete
lives, their needs, their expectations and the limits of the answers they received from the judiciary. As main theoretical references, we selected thinkers of materialist feminism, authors of Marxist critique of law, especially those linked to the Lukácsian thought, as well as researchers of critical and feminist criminology. The MPL provides a tripod in its operationalization: containment, prevention and assistance. Traditionally,
the judiciary has acted, mainly in the Criminal Law, with the coercive, punitive bias. However, with the legal innovations of the MPL, new assignments are required from this sphere. Therefore, our research seeks to answer whether the judiciary has contributed to the three axes of support of the law in the restraining order processes. As a result, we perceive that the work process of the specialized court turns mainly to
decisions of containment, mostly with measures of restriction of rights, in detriment of the person indicated as perpetrator of the violence. Decisions to promote rights, aimed at assistance and prevention of new violence, tend to be applied only if there is a specialized intervention in the care of the individuals involved. With the shortage of exclusive judicial teams to deal with the matter, we believe that there is a great loss for the judiciary and for the population served.
