The said and the not said in the nature of crime

Abstract

Objective: To identify the microstructures used in the incident reports generated after the deaths of women to name the criminal practices, thus identifying possible improbability, prejudices and antipathies. Methods: Conceptual organization by categories and discourse analysis were used with the assumption that naming to apprehend is different from naming to punish. To do so, using the following clippings: geographic (São Paulo-Brazil), temporal (January-December 2020) chosen due to the socio-environmental conditions imposed by the advance of SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, which boosted the significant increase in the cases of femicide in Brazil, a documental reading was carried out in the 167 bulletins of occurrences provided by the State Department of Public Security Results: It is possible to observe the use of different terms for crimes committed against women, even if their characteristics point to the crime of femicide. Of the 167 documents analyzed, two did not have femicide as an outcome of the crime. In one, victim and perpetrator did not have any type of relationship, being classified as simple homicide. Simple homicide is the act of intentionally killing another person, with the intention of committing the crime; crimes without qualifiers can increase privileges or decrease punishment. The other document had the unfolding field blank, not bringing any information. Conclusions: Naming to apprehend is different from naming to punish. The credible naming avoids recurrent under-notifications and deletions that harm the search and access to information. Knowing this, we believe in the need to name femicide, representing it accurately.