‘It’s not about classifying it as terrorism, but aggravating penalties’, says Derrite

Chosen to report on the Lula government’s proposal that creates the call, São Paulo’s licensed Public Security Secretary defends that the text he presented to Congress recognizes factional practices with “equivalent effects” to those of terrorism, with high penalties, but without framing them directly in the Anti-Terrorism Law, as right-wing politicians defended until then. In a written interview with GLOBO, the parliamentarian says that the objective of the project is to “increase the cost of crime”, punishing more and more rigorously, and eliminating, in this case, the possibility of granting grace, amnesty, pardon and parole. Criticized by Palácio do Planalto for trying to reap electoral dividends from the initiative being processed in the Chamber, the police officer states that “it is time to put political divergence aside, as the population is asking for help”.

Are you going to consider, in some way, the factions as terrorist organizations?

This is not about classifying factions as terrorist organizations, but rather recognizing that certain practices produce effects equivalent to terrorism, such as armed territorial domination, attacks on security forces, sabotage of public services and control of economic activities. The actions of these criminal organizations went beyond the limits of common crime, acting in a structured manner, with hierarchy, financial resources and advanced logistics, posing a direct threat to society. These conducts will be equated to terrorism by Law No. 13,260/2016.

Equating a faction with terrorism opens a way to inhibit investors and punish victims, as experts and different international examples point out. How do you intend to minimize this risk?

In the alternative, we do not classify criminal organizations as terrorists, but rather classify specific conduct carried out by their members, such as territorial control, sabotage of public services and attacks on security forces. We recognize that these acts produce social and political effects similar to those of terrorism, which justifies more severe criminal treatment proportional to the severity of the damage caused.

Do you intend to increase penalties or restrict benefits such as progression and pardon?

In the opinion, I indicate adjustment of punitive severity in several sections. For example: the provision of aggravating circumstances for leadership, maximum penalty for nuclear members, classification of new similar conduct and expanded precautionary and criminal measures. This shows the intention to toughen criminal and property responses. But I emphasize that, more than creating or toughening existing sentences, our challenge is to make criminals serve existing sentences, because the crisis we face does not only arise from the lack of adequate classifications, but above all from the fragility of the criminal execution system. Therefore, the opinion provides that the typified crimes are not subject to grace, amnesty, pardon and parole.

Are you going to maintain the criminal category of qualified criminal organization and what do you intend to add at this point?

I will maintain the criminal type of qualified criminal organization, but with adjustments and improvements to ensure greater effectiveness in combating factions. The basis of Law No. 12,850/2013 (which deals with criminal organizations) will be preserved. What I propose is to reinforce and expand the qualifications. The government’s text had some weaknesses, such as the possibility of a broad sentence reduction for first-time members (defendants), which, in practice, could benefit criminal soldiers and weaken the deterrent effect of the rule. This proposal was withdrawn. In my substitute, more serious conduct, such as armed territorial control, sabotage of public services and attacks on security forces, are now classified as equivalent to acts of terrorism, with more severe penalties, from 20 to 40 years. Additionally, I included specific causes of increase such as leadership, funding, use of restricted weapons, and transnational involvement. I also added mechanisms for property suffocation and intervention in legal entities used for crime, to prevent the use of companies as fronts for money laundering. And I included that leaders and members of the command nucleus must serve sentences in maximum security federal prisons.

There is an understanding that terrorist organizations are the prerogative of the federal government. Are you going to remove the state Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Civil Police from investigating factions?

No, on the contrary. I am making the Federal Police’s competence to investigate, process and judge crimes committed in accordance with the law approved in 2016 very clear. This article is being maintained, and I maintain the competence of the Civil Police and state Gaecos (Special Action Group to Combat Organized Crime, a body linked to the Public Prosecutor’s Office) in conduct carried out by members of criminal organizations that are being equated and can be punished as if they were terrorist acts.

Do you support the creation of an anti-mafia agency?

No. We are not going to make this prediction because it is a point that there is no broad conviction for approval, in addition to being an item that the federal government did not even send in the original project.

Will the project give more power to the Union or the states in combating factions?

When there is interstate or transnational repercussion, which has the potential to affect national security or destabilize international public order, the Ministry of Justice and Public Security may, upon provocation from the state governor, determine the joint or coordinated action of federal and state police forces.

Are you aligned on the proposal with the Minister of Justice, Ricardo Lewandowski, author of the Antifaction project, or are there differences?

I respect Minister Lewandowski’s career, but, in this specific case, I believe there was a lack of alignment and, above all, listening to the states. What we expected from the federal government was a union in search of a greater good, which is real progress in the security agenda. But the nod went in the opposite direction. In any case, I remain open to dialogue because I believe it is time to put political divergence aside, as the population is asking for help, and our obligation is to do something towards the objective of achieving more security for people.

Has the government participated in the discussions?

The government has a certain difficulty with public security in the way that the majority of the population expects. The government forwarded the proposal, and Congress has the constitutional power to make the necessary changes. The plenary (of the House) is sovereign.

Do you intend to seek support from the government to vote in favor of your report?

I will seek support from the 512 federal deputies, who will have access to my report and where I have the legitimacy to work for the approval of the project. The matter is clear, with strong proposals to toughen up and make life more difficult for members of criminal organizations.

The Minister of Institutional Relations, Gleisi Hoffmann, states that her appointment to report on this proposal “contaminates the debate with the electoral objectives of her political field”. What did you think of this review?

I do not consider this criticism to be pertinent. I am a federal deputy, currently in my second parliamentary term, and I was licensed to take command of the São Paulo Public Security Secretariat, a role I have held for almost three years. Now, I return to the Chamber to report on this project, in the same way I did in the debate on the proposal that dealt with the temporary exit. I have solid legal training: I have a bachelor’s degree in Law, I have two postgraduate degrees in the field and I am completing my master’s degree. Therefore, I have full legitimacy and technical capacity to report the matter, combining legislative knowledge and practical experience in the area of ​​public security. My commitment is to conduct the work in a strictly technical manner, based on legal criteria and the operational reality of the security forces, seeking to reduce impunity and strengthen the fight against criminal organizations.