site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   1742 thread views

Transnational Thursday for January 11, 2024

Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Ecuador

New President Daniel Noboa has started things off with a huge focus on law and order in response to the rise of organized crime in recent years (“The murder rate quadrupled from 2018 to 2022, while last year became the most violent yet with 7,500 homicides in the country of about 18 million people.”) . He has begun by announcing a referendum on new policies dealing with crime:

The referendum would seek approval from voters on lengthening prison sentences for serious crimes like homicide and arms trafficking, among others, as well for Ecuador's military to eradicate international criminal groups operating in the country, according to Noboa's letter to the court.

Noboa has also now announced the construction of two new maximum security prisons, with a not-exactly subtle nod to Bukele’s policies over in El Salvador:

He said the buildings would be exactly the same as a prison built by El Salvador President Nayib Bukele, who has led a controversial crackdown on gangs in his Central American country.

"The prisons will allow for the division, proper isolation of people," said the 36-year-old Noboa, who took office in November, speaking in a radio interview.

"For all the Bukele lovers, it is an identical prison," to those he has built, added Noboa.

To make even more room, Noboa says they will also deport over a thousand foreigners in prison back to the surrounding countries they came from (no word on those receiving countries feel about it). By design the new prisons will be on the coast, far away from the heart of the worst of the violence, in hopes it will make it harder for gangs to liberate their members.

Speaking of which, the leader of the notorious Los Choneros cartel was just liberated from prison by his fellow gang members. People are freaking out, probably understandably, and Noboa has declared a 60 day state of emergency for the leader to be found. Having only just come out of a prolonged state of emergency under Noboa’s predecessor Lasso, apparently it’s a state Ecuadorians must get used to. Given that the previous state of emergency gave the military powers of internal law enforcement, I guess it makes the whole referendum a little redundant.

The cartels have responded in kind with major prison uprisings holding over 130 prison staff hostage and ghastly footage of them breaking into a news broadcasting station and holding the staff hostage on live TV. President Noboa has now declared they are at war with the cartels and have detained hundreds of alleged gang members. It's been a really crazy few days.

So just taking a look at this leader that got busted out.

He was serving a sentence of thirty-four years in the Litoral Penitentiary for organized crime, drug trafficking, and murders.

Those are some pretty serious crimes. What I don't understand is why the prison sentence? This isn't the first time he's been busted and cartels are totally wrecking a large portion of the continent (and more importantly for Ecuador, Ecuador). Why not try him and execute him? I would think in 1800s America if he had done the same crimes he'd have gotten a short trial and a quick death. Are they worried about escalating a war between the government and the cartels, where both sides execute prisoners? Or are they really just trying to be humane here?

Ecuador released the Monster of the Andes, known as perhaps history's most prolific serial killer, after a 16 year sentence because that's all they were legally able to give him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_L%C3%B3pez_(serial_killer)

He was supposed to report into authorities periodically, but obviously that never happened. Who knows how many people he killed afterwards?

So their judicial system is kind of a clown show.

Ecuador hasn't had the death penalty since 1897. They can't (legally) execute him without changing the constitution.

Wow, I did not know. That is a very bad thing considering the conditions they live in now. It may be that only prosperous countries can afford to be humane. That being said, that's pretty early for getting rid of capital punishment, right? I wonder how many other countries could say that. Feels like we didn't start caring about people living or dying until after World War II.

Edit: Holy cow, looking at this map on this page is pretty shocking to me. How could so many non-European countries get rid of it? Looks like for South America, Ecuador was late to the party, if anything. Damn. Like I said, I think pretty much everywhere that's not western Europe or a Commonwealth country could probably benefit from the death penalty.

That color scheme is hilarious. Clearly lets you know which side Wikipedia prefers.

Russia is an abolitionist-in-practice? Man, they really need to improve their building codes, I'd never buy an apartment with windows or a bathtub there.

They didn't hand down any death sentences between the first Chechen war and the Ukraine invasion, apparently. All those journalists dying in suspicious circumstances were extrajudicial.

When any outside observer can, with minimal cynicism required, attribute their deaths to FSB agents or other goons sanctioned by the government, I consider that a distinction without a difference. You might argue that it could be at the behest of individual oligarchs, but Russia can be accurately described as an oligarchy.

Oh will no one rid me of this meddlesome journalist?

That having less concern about regime critics being murdered by "random thugs" who will never be investigated than murderers being sentenced to death is stupid doesn't mean it's impossible to draw the distinction.

More comments

You might want to refresh your history knowledge. Europe wasn't particularly early in abolishing the death penalty. Ironically for this subthread, several Central / South American countries were among the first.

They abolished it in the same way Russia abolished it, which is to say they merely altered the means by which state-sanctioned executions take place.

Previous attempts to bring back the death penalty in Latin America have resulted in cartels killing literal hundreds of random people in protest at the possibility being floated, and in Mexico cartels have taken entire cities hostage to prevent extradition to the United States of leaders who would be charged with a capital offense.

It may well be that reinstating the death penalty is the right move for countries with cartel problems on the whole, but few leaders have the cajones to accept schoolbusses full of orphans being slaughtered on live TV for talking about it.

Wow! I did not know this either! Violence enforced humanitarian stances are something. I don't even know how you would go about fixing this...

I guess this is a life lesson that you should never let go of the death penalty. Just quietly stop using it if you don't like it any more.

The cartels have responded in kind with major prison uprisings and ghastly footage of them breaking into a news broadcasting station and holding the staff hostage on live TV. It's been a really crazy few days.

I wouldn't mind them hanging around as debate moderators, especially if they're strict about time keeping. Shooting an Uzi next to someone's ear works better than muting mics!

I am curious to see how a genuine "tough on crime" policy plays out, now that we have multiple ongoing experiments. Some people might still like to believe that violence and repression can never work when it comes to reducing crime, whereas it's obvious to me that if it doesn't, you're not using enough, or at least employing it on the wrong targets. Bukele somehow didn't manage to shut up all the doubters, but at least other people in power have noticed and that seems to have overruled a lot of institutional inertia and learned helpless handwringing.

It'll be interesting to see what Noboa does next. He ran on and for now seems to be pursuing a genuine tough on crime policy, but there are a fair amount of people who suspect his family of having cartel ties as well. His family is a banana shipping magnate and banana shipments are the primary way (that we/Europe have caught at least) that the Ecuadorian cartels have been moving drugs. The cartels are more recent in Ecuador but at least in more established countries like Colombia (1, 2) and Mexico it's normal for them to spend significant sums backing friendly candidates to the Presidency.

Bukele somehow didn't manage to shut up all the doubters,

In fairness it's a lot easier to lock up all the criminals when they've tattooed "bad guy" on their face. The real trick is just to have such a permissive approach to crime that gang members feel comfortable labeling themselves, then you can swoop em up all at once. Fwiw though, Bukele does have a string of copycat candidates running/or who ran in elections across Central and South America, though not all of them successful.

There are very few important political actors in Central America who doesn’t have some sort of ties to some drug crime. It’s typically more useful to think of the “cartels” (what a weird name when you think about it) as public-private partnerships between the drug entrepreneurs and different levels of the government. The real difficulty these states have fighting against cartels doesn’t have anything to do with regular policing problems. It’s the challenge of organising the state apparatus to fight parts of itself. Army against police departments, judiciary against army, central government against provincial governors etc is how it usually goes. There is a reason why these states get a new “totally not corrupt this time” police department every 5 years to investigate the other police departments. “Cartel”s are often just a part of the state organism

I think the meaning of a genuine tough on crime policy is very different in Ecuador or El Salvador where the crime problem is organised crime where sane people have chosen to persue criminal careers because they are more attractive than legal careers, versus a place like the US where most of the crime we are worried about is committed by drunks, druggies and mentally ill people.

If the gangs are credibly threatening the State's monopoly on violence (and busting a gang leader out of jail counts), then fighting them is more like war than policing.

I agree that long jail sentences don't act as a great deterrent for U.S. criminals, but they are still extremely valuable. Why? Because there is immense value to keeping the worst of society isolated during their most violent years.

Most criminals do not commit only one crime. They tend to commit dozens. The typical murderer will be a career criminal with several serious crimes. If we arrest and jail people for armed robbery or assault, we reduce the pool of potential murderers. Three strikes laws worked great in this regard.

As the prison population increased from 1980–2010, the crime rate fell.

As the prison population decreased since 2010, the crime rate rose.

Could you provide some citations on "typical murderer will be a career criminal"? Are you saying that murderers are generally violent people who tend to commit other crimes like assault (which I can believe), or specifically that they pursue crime as a career (i.e. serial robbers, shoplifters, etc.)?

Are you saying that murderers are generally violent people who tend to commit other crimes like assault

Yes.

or specifically that they pursue crime as a career (i.e. serial robbers, shoplifters, etc.)?

No, I don't believe they are primarily motivated by money. I think they are just violent people.

Could you provide some citations on "typical murderer will be a career criminal"?

You're going to be hard pressed to find an academic study on this matter for the usual obvious reasons. But the newspaper is full of anecdotes of killers being arrested who already have dozens of convictions which in a city like Seattle means hundreds of crimes.

Here's a stat from an earlier time (2002) https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

"Sixty-seven percent of murderers had an arrest record."

This does seem unbelievably low to me. I remember an earlier study out of Wisconsin that said the average murderer had already been arrested SIX times before committing the murder. Unfortunately, this seems to have been memory holed.

Are you saying that murderers are generally violent people who tend to commit other crimes like assault

Yes.

or specifically that they pursue crime as a career (i.e. serial robbers, shoplifters, etc.)?

No, I don't believe they are primarily motivated by money. I think they are just violent people.

Makes more sense. Because yeah, there are places where most murder is by actual career criminals - organised crime, in particular - but I was strongly under the impression that the West wasn't in that category.

"Sixty-seven percent of murderers had an arrest record."

This does seem unbelievably low to me. I remember an earlier study out of Wisconsin that said the average murderer had already been arrested SIX times before committing the murder.

Both can be simultaneously true, because there are some murderers who have been arrested literally hundreds of times and that drives up the mean. In particular, psychopaths. Quoting from Without Conscience:

Many of the antisocial acts of psychopaths lead to criminal convictions. Even within prison populations psychopaths stand out, largely because their antisocial and illegal activities are more varied and frequent than are those of other criminals. Psychopaths tend to have no particular affinity, or “specialty,” for any one type of crime but tend to try everything. This criminal versatility is well illustrated in the television program, described earlier in this chapter, in which Robert Ressler interviewed G. Daniel Walker. Following is a brief exchange from that interview:

“How long is your rap sheet?”

“I would think the current one would probably be about twenty-nine or thirty pages.”

“Twenty-nine or thirty pages! Charles Manson’s is only five.”

“But he was only a killer.”

What Walker meant was that he himself was not only a killer but a criminal of enormous versatility, a fact of which he seemed very proud. He openly boasted of having committed more than three hundred crimes in which he had not been caught.

I think he means that it's the other way around.

A career criminal is much more likely to commit all sorts of crime. Locking them up for their other crimes won't reform them or deter like-minded people outside but while locked up it will prevent them from continuing to do crime, including possibly murder.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats