The literature on government violence focuses primarily on the repression of dissent. But not all state violence targets groups who oppose the government. Much of it targets criminal suspects, immigrants, and other marginalized groups who are not perceived to be challenging the government’s authority. The vast majority of findings concerning state violence comes from analyses that do not distinguish between government violence that targets acts of dissent and violence used for other purposes, which we call oppressive violence. Because of this, we have not yet established many empirical facts about the relationship between domestic institutions and violence unrelated to the repression of dissent. Though political institutions associated with democracy are known to reduce the frequency of torture and other violent abuses, it is unclear whether these effects are attributable to reductions in repressive violence, oppressive violence, or both. We argue that explanations for state violence that focus on democracy are better suited to explain repressive violence than oppressive violence. We use the Ill-Treatment and Torture data, which can be disaggregated by victim type, to explore the relationship between the torture of dissidents, criminal suspects, and members of marginalized social groups, and various conditions thought to be related to repressive and oppressive violence.

中文翻译：

---

使用“虐待和酷刑”数据检查压迫性和压迫性国家暴力

有关政府暴力的文献主要集中于镇压异议人士。但是，并非所有的州暴力都针对反对政府的团体。它的大部分目标是犯罪嫌疑人，移民和其他边缘群体，他们没有被视为挑战政府的权威。有关国家暴力的调查结果绝大多数来自分析，这些分析没有区分针对异议行为的政府暴力和用于其他目的的暴力，我们称之为压迫性暴力。因此，我们尚未建立有关家庭机构与与镇压持不同政见者无关的暴力之间的关系的许多经验事实。尽管众所周知，与民主相关的政治机构可以减少酷刑和其他暴力侵害的频率，尚不清楚这些影响是否归因于抑制性暴力，压迫性暴力或两者的减少。我们认为，以民主为重点的对国家暴力的解释比压迫性暴力更适合解释压制性暴力。我们使用可以按受害者类型分类的“虐待和酷刑”数据，探索持不同政见者，犯罪嫌疑人和边缘化社会群体成员的酷刑与各种与压制和压迫暴力有关的状况之间的关系。 。