Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2023 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Rodrigues Neto, João Manoel
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Pereira, Maria Eliza Mazzilli
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Tese
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Psicologia Experimental: Análise do Comportamento
|
| Departamento: |
Faculdade de Ciências Humanas e da Saúde
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://repositorio.pucsp.br/jspui/handle/handle/39693
|
Resumo: |
Considering the historical role of Behavior Analysis and its theoretical and methodological characteristics, this research aimed to evaluate (1) who have been served by behavior analysts when approaching criminality and the penal system; and (2) how to rethink the function/application of the penal system based on the principles and methods of Behavior Analysis, aiming at building a new form of human sociability. The answer to these research problems was sought in a theoretical analysis of the principles of critical criminology and penal abolitionism and of the criticisms undertaken by James Holland to the performance of behavior analysts; in a characterization of research reports on applied behavior analysis on the penal system; and in an analysis of theoretical texts on alternative actions to the service provided by the penal system, seeking possible principles of Behavior Analysis that allow a critical analysis of crime, criminality and criminal law. The theoretical essay allowed establishing parallels between the criticisms made by Holland to behavior analysts and the criticisms made by penal abolitionists to the penal system, both in defense of a historically situated analysis of supposedly technical or legal actions, and in defense of a project of a solution that involves criticizing the hierarchical and oppressive organization of capitalism as a source of problems that are treated as internal to individuals. The characterization of the applications allowed concluding that there is a limited production of behavior analysts within the penal system and that there was a continuation of this production, albeit in a restricted number, over the analyzed decades; furthermore, interventions generally produced important measurable effects on target behaviors and demonstrated such effects using some experimental procedure; the target behaviors varied in relation to who defined them, who and how many were the research participants and the type of institution where the interventions were implemented; finally, few application reports presented direct criticism of the organization of the penal system and the possible structural causes for the generation of problems by this organization. The analysis of theoretical texts allowed a counterpoint to the infrequency of critical analyzes in application reports, with proposals that were fundamentally in three fields: the need to work with prevention; the need to assess social (political) contingencies in addition to therapeutic (individual interventions); and the construction of Restorative Justice as an alternative to the penal system. In all three cases, behavioral principles on the determination of behavior, on the role of the social environment and a hierarchical social structure in the production of criminalized problems and in the exercise of the penal system and on the reduction of coercive processes were at the base of the criticisms, proposals and of the approaches promoted by the authors read. In conclusion, Holland's description of limits in the application of Behavior Analysis and possibilities generated by our principles when it comes to promoting revolutionary or reforming agendas seems to be reproduced in the field of action and reflection on the penal system. |
