Questões para Concursos

The role of the police in a healthy democracy is radically different from their role in authoritarian societies. In autocratic regimes, the police serve mainly to protect not the people, but the regime. The police are therefore typically politicized, with appointments being part of the patronage system that rewards regime loyalists. Police officers spend a great deal of time spying on the populace to unmask political opposition; crime against citizens is less of a concern. Abuse and corruption are usually rife, because police are not held accountable for their actions. Rather, political leaders tolerate abuses by the police in return for police loyalty to the regime.

By contrast, in democratic societies the primary mission of the police is to protect citizens against crime and disorder, including illegal or corrupt behavior by officials. In democracies, police have carefully circumscribed roles that require close and positive relations with ordinary citizens. The use of arms and pursuit of criminals are rare and take up only a tiny fraction of police time. Instead, police officers spend the vast bulk of their time building relationships with the community through patrols, community-enhancing activities, and listening to citizens. The goal of democratic policing is to build a web of relationships between the community and the police that helps to control crime by making police aware of the persons and activities in the communities that they are assigned to protect and by inclining citizens to trust and cooperate with police. This also achieves the primary goal of making citizens feel secure in their daily activities, thereby fostering a climate that encourages increased legitimate business activity, investment, and planning for the future.

Michael D. Wiatrowski and Jack A. Goldstone. The ballot and the badge : democratic policing. In: Journal of Democracy , Volume 21, Number 2. Internet: (adapted). Concerning the previous text, judge the following items.

The role of the police in a healthy democracy is radically different from their role in authoritarian societies. In autocratic regimes, the police serve mainly to protect not the people, but the regime. The police are therefore typically politicized, with appointments being part of the patronage system that rewards regime loyalists. Police officers spend a great deal of time spying on the populace to unmask political opposition; crime against citizens is less of a concern. Abuse and corruption are usually rife, because police are not held accountable for their actions. Rather, political leaders tolerate abuses by the police in return for police loyalty to the regime.

By contrast, in democratic societies the primary mission of the police is to protect citizens against crime and disorder, including illegal or corrupt behavior by officials. In democracies, police have carefully circumscribed roles that require close and positive relations with ordinary citizens. The use of arms and pursuit of criminals are rare and take up only a tiny fraction of police time. Instead, police officers spend the vast bulk of their time building relationships with the community through patrols, community-enhancing activities, and listening to citizens. The goal of democratic policing is to build a web of relationships between the community and the police that helps to control crime by making police aware of the persons and activities in the communities that they are assigned to protect and by inclining citizens to trust and cooperate with police. This also achieves the primary goal of making citizens feel secure in their daily activities, thereby fostering a climate that encourages increased legitimate business activity, investment, and planning for the future.

Michael D. Wiatrowski and Jack A. Goldstone. The ballot and the badge : democratic policing. In: Journal of Democracy , Volume 21, Number 2. Internet: (adapted). Concerning the previous text, judge the following items.

The role of the police in a healthy democracy is radically different from their role in authoritarian societies. In autocratic regimes, the police serve mainly to protect not the people, but the regime. The police are therefore typically politicized, with appointments being part of the patronage system that rewards regime loyalists. Police officers spend a great deal of time spying on the populace to unmask political opposition; crime against citizens is less of a concern. Abuse and corruption are usually rife, because police are not held accountable for their actions. Rather, political leaders tolerate abuses by the police in return for police loyalty to the regime.

By contrast, in democratic societies the primary mission of the police is to protect citizens against crime and disorder, including illegal or corrupt behavior by officials. In democracies, police have carefully circumscribed roles that require close and positive relations with ordinary citizens. The use of arms and pursuit of criminals are rare and take up only a tiny fraction of police time. Instead, police officers spend the vast bulk of their time building relationships with the community through patrols, community-enhancing activities, and listening to citizens. The goal of democratic policing is to build a web of relationships between the community and the police that helps to control crime by making police aware of the persons and activities in the communities that they are assigned to protect and by inclining citizens to trust and cooperate with police. This also achieves the primary goal of making citizens feel secure in their daily activities, thereby fostering a climate that encourages increased legitimate business activity, investment, and planning for the future.

Michael D. Wiatrowski and Jack A. Goldstone. The ballot and the badge : democratic policing. In: Journal of Democracy , Volume 21, Number 2. Internet: (adapted). Concerning the previous text, judge the following items.

The role of the police in a healthy democracy is radically different from their role in authoritarian societies. In autocratic regimes, the police serve mainly to protect not the people, but the regime. The police are therefore typically politicized, with appointments being part of the patronage system that rewards regime loyalists. Police officers spend a great deal of time spying on the populace to unmask political opposition; crime against citizens is less of a concern. Abuse and corruption are usually rife, because police are not held accountable for their actions. Rather, political leaders tolerate abuses by the police in return for police loyalty to the regime.

By contrast, in democratic societies the primary mission of the police is to protect citizens against crime and disorder, including illegal or corrupt behavior by officials. In democracies, police have carefully circumscribed roles that require close and positive relations with ordinary citizens. The use of arms and pursuit of criminals are rare and take up only a tiny fraction of police time. Instead, police officers spend the vast bulk of their time building relationships with the community through patrols, community-enhancing activities, and listening to citizens. The goal of democratic policing is to build a web of relationships between the community and the police that helps to control crime by making police aware of the persons and activities in the communities that they are assigned to protect and by inclining citizens to trust and cooperate with police. This also achieves the primary goal of making citizens feel secure in their daily activities, thereby fostering a climate that encourages increased legitimate business activity, investment, and planning for the future.

Michael D. Wiatrowski and Jack A. Goldstone. The ballot and the badge : democratic policing. In: Journal of Democracy , Volume 21, Number 2. Internet: (adapted). Concerning the previous text, judge the following items.

Many studies reveal the contributions of plant breeding and agronomy to farm productivity and their role in reshaping global diets. However, historical accounts also implicate these sciences in the creation of new problems, from novel disease vulnerabilities propagated through industrial monocrops to the negative ecological and public health consequences of crops dependent on chemical inputs and industrialized food systems more generally. Increasingly, historical analyses also highlight the expertise variously usurped, overlooked, abandoned, or suppressed in the pursuit of “modern” agricultural science. Experiment stations and “improved” plants were instruments of colonialism, means of controlling lands and lives of peoples typically labeled as “primitive” and “backward” by imperial authorities. In many cases, the assumptions of colonial improvers persisted in the international development programs that have sought since the mid-20th century to deliver “modern” science to farming communities in the Global South. Awareness of these issues has brought alternative domains of crop science such as agroecology to the fore in recent decades, as researchers reconcile the need for robust crop knowledge and know-how with the imperatives of addressing social and environmental injustice. Helen Anne Curry; Ryan Nehring. The history of crop science and the future of food. Internet: (adapted)

In the 20 th century, we made tremendous advances in discovering fundamental principles in different scientific disciplines that created major breakthroughs in management and technology for agricultural systems, mostly by empirical means. However, as we enter the 21st century, agricultural research has more difficult and complex problems to solve. The environmental consciousness of the general public is requiring us to modify farm management to protect water, air, and soil quality, while staying economically profitable. At the same time, market-based global competition in agricultural products is challenging economic viability of the traditional agricultural systems, and requires the development of new and dynamic production systems. Fortunately, the new electronic technologies can provide us a vast amount of real-time information about crop conditions and near-term weather via remote sensing by satellites or ground-based instruments and the Internet, that can be utilized to develop a whole new level of management. However, we need the means to capture and make sense of this vast amount of site-specific data. Our customers, the agricultural producers, are asking for a quicker transfer of research results in an integrated usable form for site-specific management. Such a request can only be met with system models, because system models are indeed the integration and quantification of current knowledge based on fundamental principles and laws. Models enhance understanding of data taken under certain conditions and help extrapolate their applications to other conditions and locations. Lajpat R. Ahuja; Liwang Ma; Terry A. Howell. Whole System Integration and Modeling — Essential to Agricultural Science and Technology in the 21st Century. In: Lajpat R. Ahuja; Liwang Ma; Terry A. Howell (eds.) Agricultural system models in field research and technology transfer . Boca Raton, CRC Press LLC, 2002 (adapted).

Many studies reveal the contributions of plant breeding and agronomy to farm productivity and their role in reshaping global diets. However, historical accounts also implicate these sciences in the creation of new problems, from novel disease vulnerabilities propagated through industrial monocrops to the negative ecological and public health consequences of crops dependent on chemical inputs and industrialized food systems more generally. Increasingly, historical analyses also highlight the expertise variously usurped, overlooked, abandoned, or suppressed in the pursuit of “modern” agricultural science. Experiment stations and “improved” plants were instruments of colonialism, means of controlling lands and lives of peoples typically labeled as “primitive” and “backward” by imperial authorities. In many cases, the assumptions of colonial improvers persisted in the international development programs that have sought since the mid-20th century to deliver “modern” science to farming communities in the Global South. Awareness of these issues has brought alternative domains of crop science such as agroecology to the fore in recent decades, as researchers reconcile the need for robust crop knowledge and know-how with the imperatives of addressing social and environmental injustice. Helen Anne Curry; Ryan Nehring. The history of crop science and the future of food. Internet: (adapted)

Many studies reveal the contributions of plant breeding and agronomy to farm productivity and their role in reshaping global diets. However, historical accounts also implicate these sciences in the creation of new problems, from novel disease vulnerabilities propagated through industrial monocrops to the negative ecological and public health consequences of crops dependent on chemical inputs and industrialized food systems more generally. Increasingly, historical analyses also highlight the expertise variously usurped, overlooked, abandoned, or suppressed in the pursuit of “modern” agricultural science. Experiment stations and “improved” plants were instruments of colonialism, means of controlling lands and lives of peoples typically labeled as “primitive” and “backward” by imperial authorities. In many cases, the assumptions of colonial improvers persisted in the international development programs that have sought since the mid-20th century to deliver “modern” science to farming communities in the Global South. Awareness of these issues has brought alternative domains of crop science such as agroecology to the fore in recent decades, as researchers reconcile the need for robust crop knowledge and know-how with the imperatives of addressing social and environmental injustice. Helen Anne Curry; Ryan Nehring. The history of crop science and the future of food. Internet: (adapted)

Many studies reveal the contributions of plant breeding and agronomy to farm productivity and their role in reshaping global diets. However, historical accounts also implicate these sciences in the creation of new problems, from novel disease vulnerabilities propagated through industrial monocrops to the negative ecological and public health consequences of crops dependent on chemical inputs and industrialized food systems more generally. Increasingly, historical analyses also highlight the expertise variously usurped, overlooked, abandoned, or suppressed in the pursuit of “modern” agricultural science. Experiment stations and “improved” plants were instruments of colonialism, means of controlling lands and lives of peoples typically labeled as “primitive” and “backward” by imperial authorities. In many cases, the assumptions of colonial improvers persisted in the international development programs that have sought since the mid-20th century to deliver “modern” science to farming communities in the Global South. Awareness of these issues has brought alternative domains of crop science such as agroecology to the fore in recent decades, as researchers reconcile the need for robust crop knowledge and know-how with the imperatives of addressing social and environmental injustice. Helen Anne Curry; Ryan Nehring. The history of crop science and the future of food. Internet: (adapted)

In the 20 th century, we made tremendous advances in discovering fundamental principles in different scientific disciplines that created major breakthroughs in management and technology for agricultural systems, mostly by empirical means. However, as we enter the 21st century, agricultural research has more difficult and complex problems to solve. The environmental consciousness of the general public is requiring us to modify farm management to protect water, air, and soil quality, while staying economically profitable. At the same time, market-based global competition in agricultural products is challenging economic viability of the traditional agricultural systems, and requires the development of new and dynamic production systems. Fortunately, the new electronic technologies can provide us a vast amount of real-time information about crop conditions and near-term weather via remote sensing by satellites or ground-based instruments and the Internet, that can be utilized to develop a whole new level of management. However, we need the means to capture and make sense of this vast amount of site-specific data. Our customers, the agricultural producers, are asking for a quicker transfer of research results in an integrated usable form for site-specific management. Such a request can only be met with system models, because system models are indeed the integration and quantification of current knowledge based on fundamental principles and laws. Models enhance understanding of data taken under certain conditions and help extrapolate their applications to other conditions and locations. Lajpat R. Ahuja; Liwang Ma; Terry A. Howell. Whole System Integration and Modeling — Essential to Agricultural Science and Technology in the 21st Century. In: Lajpat R. Ahuja; Liwang Ma; Terry A. Howell (eds.) Agricultural system models in field research and technology transfer . Boca Raton, CRC Press LLC, 2002 (adapted).