Angelina Snodgrass Godoy

When justice is criminal: Lynchings in contemporary Latin America

Abstractcross Latin America, the 1990s saw an increase in popular lynchings of suspected criminals at the hands of large crowds. Although it is often assumed that these incidents involve random, regrettable, and relatively spontaneous acts of violence or throwbacks to the past, I argue in this article that these represent purposeful, powerful, and deeply political acts. Most literature on the region tends to regard contemporary violence as a predominantly “top-down” phenomenon—by state against citizen, landowner against peasant, mestizo against Indian—yet these incidents reveal a new sort of violence that originates at the bottom. I argue that the lynchings suggest an attempt by embattled communities to reassert their autonomy after decades of repeated assault by state armies, local elites, the globalized economy, and other adversaries. By enacting these highly ritualized, unequivocally public displays of “justice,” marginalized communities seek not only to punish and to deter criminal activity, but perhaps more importantly, to reassert themselves collectively as agents rather than victims. In this way, lynchings may reveal a dark side of what passes for “democracy” in the region.

A Tale of Two Cities: A Comparative Analysis of Quality of Life Initiatives in New York and Bogotá

In the 1990s, city officials made a concerted effort to enhance security and civility in two large cities long associated with fear and danger: New York City and Bogotá, Colombia. In this article, a comparison is made of how ‘quality of life’ and ‘civility’ were conceptualised and pursued in New York City and Bogotá in the 1990s. The findings suggest that there were some similarities in the conceptualisation and operationalisation of these ideals, and that both cities became markedly safer in the period under investigation. Yet there were also important differences in the quality of life campaigns undertaken in the two settings. Specifically, measures to protect rights, enhance social services and expand the use of public spaces, particularly in poor communities, were a key component of Bogotá’s quality of life campaign. The Bogotá example shows that it is possible to take crime and civility seriously without criminalising minor offences and by coupling security measures with broader initiatives to strengthen democratic inclusion.

Intellectual property and access to medicines: an analysis of legislation in Central America

Globalization of intellectual property (IP) protection for medicines has been advancing during the past decade. Countries are obliged to adapt their legislation as a requirement of their membership to the World Trade Organization or as a condition of being part of international trade agreements. There is a growing recognition that, in low-income countries, stronger IP protection is a barrier to access to medicines. At the same time, the number of low-income countries writing national legislation to protect IP for pharmaceutical products is growing worldwide, but little research has been done on the ways in which this process is happening at the national level. This paper aims to contribute to the understanding of the implementation of IP legislation at the national level by providing a comparative analysis of the countries that are part of the United States-Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). The analysis shows three trends. First, countries have often implemented stronger IP protection than required by trade agreements. Second, some countries have adopted IP protection before signing the trade agreements. Third, the process of ratification of DR-CAFTA increased public debate around these issues, which in some cases led to IP legislation that considers public health needs. These trends suggest that industrialized countries and the pharmaceutical industry are using more tactics than just trade agreements to push for increased IP protection and that the process of national legislation is a valid arena for confronting public health needs to those of the industry.

Power, politics, and penality: Punitiveness as backlash in American democracies

Across the Americas, public discussions of crime and penal practices have become increasingly punitive even as political struggles have resulted in a broad shift toward Constitutional democracy. In this chapter, we suggest that the spread of tough anti-crime talk and practice is, paradoxically, a response to efforts to expand and deepen democracy. Punitive crime talk is useful to political actors seeking to limit formal and social citizenship rights for several reasons. First, it ostensibly targets problematic behavior rather than particular social groups, and thus appears to be consistent with democratic norms. At the same time, crime talk often acquires coded meanings that enable those who mobilize it to tap into inter-group hostility, anxieties, and fear. In addition, the emphasis on the threat of crime and disorder offers those seeking to limit democratic expansion a way to legitimate truncated visions of the rights and entitlements of citizenship. Tough anti-crime rhetoric often resonates with those who have experienced or fear the loss of symbolic and/or material benefits as a result of democratic reform. In short, the broad shift toward hyper-penality is, at least in part, a consequence of struggles over political democracy, citizenship and governance across the Americas.