How the World’s Most Dangerous Country Solved Murder
- Thread starter Yapdatfool
- Start date
tldw:
A benevolent dictator
A benevolent dictator
People really love quick-fix bandaids with immediate results, no matter what the long-term consequences , then call the problem "solved" even though the root causes haven't even been addressed and long-term consequences aren't even known.
Some obvious caveats to the "feel-good" story.
* Murders in El Salvador have been on a strong downward trend since 2016, three years before this leader took power and six years before these draconian measures were implemented.
* Considering that many shooters are responsible for multiple bodies, and a lot of killers get got themselves, there were likely only a few hundred murderers operating in El Salvador. Which suggests that 99% of the 40,000 people rounded up weren't killers at all. A large number of them had likely been responsible for other crimes. Others were only involved in gangs at all because they were forced at threat of their own life or that of their family members. Others had likely left the life entirely. We have literally no way of knowing what crimes they've committed or who might be innocent, because the round-up isn't even requiring any evidence of specific crimes, just a mere accusation of affiliation.
* In the year directly after the roundup, a few hundred fewer murders were committed. But just as many murders as that were still committed, which casts some doubt on the framing of the initiative as some sort of total wipeout of violent gang activity. Those few hundred fewer murders are the probable one-year impact, but what are the consequences going forward? Did this "solve" the problem, or did it simply slightly accelerate the already existing trend? Will these 40,000 uncharged inmates without rights be imprisoned for 5 years, 10 years, 40 years? If their incarceration is short-term, will they be less violent or more violent when they get out? Will their children be more likely or less likely to grow up dysfunctional themselves, especially the children of those who weren't in the game, had already left, or were going to soon? If the incarceration is long-term, how will the nation afford it, especially considering the likely need to continue incarcerating tens of thousands more as murders have and will continue?
* What is the eventual out for those who did not do anything to deserve indefinite imprisonment? Will any sort of reasonable human rights for a defense be granted at some point? How many of those are there....1000? 5000? 10,000? What's the equation to decide how many X lives can be ruined to save Y others....especially considering that many of the potential victims were likely other now incarcerated persons?
Before dismissing these questions, remember that all of the exact same rationales which defend these practices are also used in the USA. Most obviously, to defend police shootings, because some 1000 a year killed by the police supposedly keeps innocent civilians or officers from being killed, and if some of them were not actually trying to take anyone's life, well too bad - they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and likely bad people anyway. Sometimes you have to kill a few innocents to maintain that thin blue line, right?
Some obvious caveats to the "feel-good" story.
* Murders in El Salvador have been on a strong downward trend since 2016, three years before this leader took power and six years before these draconian measures were implemented.
* Considering that many shooters are responsible for multiple bodies, and a lot of killers get got themselves, there were likely only a few hundred murderers operating in El Salvador. Which suggests that 99% of the 40,000 people rounded up weren't killers at all. A large number of them had likely been responsible for other crimes. Others were only involved in gangs at all because they were forced at threat of their own life or that of their family members. Others had likely left the life entirely. We have literally no way of knowing what crimes they've committed or who might be innocent, because the round-up isn't even requiring any evidence of specific crimes, just a mere accusation of affiliation.
* In the year directly after the roundup, a few hundred fewer murders were committed. But just as many murders as that were still committed, which casts some doubt on the framing of the initiative as some sort of total wipeout of violent gang activity. Those few hundred fewer murders are the probable one-year impact, but what are the consequences going forward? Did this "solve" the problem, or did it simply slightly accelerate the already existing trend? Will these 40,000 uncharged inmates without rights be imprisoned for 5 years, 10 years, 40 years? If their incarceration is short-term, will they be less violent or more violent when they get out? Will their children be more likely or less likely to grow up dysfunctional themselves, especially the children of those who weren't in the game, had already left, or were going to soon? If the incarceration is long-term, how will the nation afford it, especially considering the likely need to continue incarcerating tens of thousands more as murders have and will continue?
* What is the eventual out for those who did not do anything to deserve indefinite imprisonment? Will any sort of reasonable human rights for a defense be granted at some point? How many of those are there....1000? 5000? 10,000? What's the equation to decide how many X lives can be ruined to save Y others....especially considering that many of the potential victims were likely other now incarcerated persons?
Before dismissing these questions, remember that all of the exact same rationales which defend these practices are also used in the USA. Most obviously, to defend police shootings, because some 1000 a year killed by the police supposedly keeps innocent civilians or officers from being killed, and if some of them were not actually trying to take anyone's life, well too bad - they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and likely bad people anyway. Sometimes you have to kill a few innocents to maintain that thin blue line, right?
Last edited:
To add @Rhakim there are various stories of them just locking up any random person and there’s no actual due process. You’re not required to even be charged with anything under the policy. There are Colombians who got arrested for nothing and spent months in prison and only got out because their wives made a fuss in the Colombian press. Some of them are still in prison because they haven’t had anyone vouch for them. Those guys just traveled to El Salavador believing in the tech boom hype and had not done anything.
The Times ran a good story about this a month ago: El Salvador Decimated Its Ruthless Gangs. But at What Cost?
It may not be ethical, especially in our eyes, but extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. I hope they don't stick with this approach long term but in the short term, it's hard to judge what they're doing from so far away considering how awful it sounded there.
It may not be ethical, especially in our eyes, but extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. I hope they don't stick with this approach long term but in the short term, it's hard to judge what they're doing from so far away considering how awful it sounded there.
Breh, look at this chart and explain how this was a moment of last resort. Murder had already been dropping for six years when they instituted this shyt in 2022.
The murder rate in El Salvador in 2020 and 2021 was fairly close to Puerto Rico or Louisiana. It was lower than the murder rates for Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Memphis, Cleveland, and Kansas City, just half the rate of New Orleans or Detroit, and 1/3 the murder rate of St. Louis or Baltimore. In terms of total # of murders, we're talking about the same as in Florida or Illinois.
It's hard to me to objectively claim that such murder totals require the massive human rights violations of tens of thousands of people, including hundreds of killings (over 300 people have been killed so far in the campaign if you combine deaths during arrests with deaths in custody).
How do you do this as a "short term" thing? You imprison tens of thousands of people without trial, beat and torture them in prison, put a bunch of notorious gangsters who'd likely done evil shyt together with thousands of other impressionable young men who likely hadn't done any such things at all....and then just release them all? What exactly is the endgame for a "short term" fix in this case?
Last edited: