My parents and I had an interesting discussion this afternoon about whether or not the hired killers that have taken over the streets of Mexico and invoked fear into the hearts of its citizens deserve the death penalty.
News accounts estimate that more than 130 Mexicans have already died at the hands of bloodthirsty traffickers in June alone. A cousin of mine, who lives Reynosa, opposite the Texan town of McAllen, said she believes the numbers reported by the media are actually only counting about 70 percent of the actual murders that are occurring.
To say Mexico is undergoing a civil war of sorts is trite. It's obvious to anyone who keeps an ear out for news from Latin America that the situation for Mexicans is looking pretty grim. And while the Mexican federal government keeps saying it is putting forth an effort to combat the narcos, justice for the victims being tortured and slaughtered is slow-moving.
Which leads me to my question: Do men and women found guilty of being mercenaries for the narcos deserve the death penalty? And if so, should it be done publicly?
My mother and father argued that the people responsible for these massacres should be executed publicly, hung in the middle of the town squares to be made examples of and somehow discourage the other thousands of sicarios from also murdering innocent Mexicans in cold blood.
Personally, I don't think violence solves violence, nor do I think an issue like this can be so easily fixed. The multiple murders each day are not symptoms of something but rather the end result of a long line of problems that plague Mexico, including corruption and an over-dependence on the United States.
I should also note that in Mexico, the death penalty is illegal. People can be sentenced to life in prison for the gravest of crimes but cannot be executed.
If narcos really do threaten people to pay for "protective services" or be killed, what's to say that they aren't forcing people to work for them? And what's to say that public executions will really do anything to stop that? I'm not naive enough to think that putting the narcos in jail will solve issues either, but I'm not claiming to know the answer. I just know that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, and killing the killers lowers us to their level.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This was such an interesting post.
ReplyDeleteI wrote a huge reply, however it was deleted.
I think the most interesting thing to note is that whilst all this internal turmoil is occurring within the state, Mexico is one of the ten non-permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Another issue I think that is important is that the root cause is the drug users themselves. These users are what cause a vicious cycle of violence within these states where narcotic trafficking is high. However, whether or not a state can actually combat drug abuse (or want to) is another matter. In theory, the US in particular should want to, as large sums of money is being pulled out of the economy by addicts and sent to drug lords around the world (not simply Mexico). But this is off the topic.
I think that your parents do make a point. Deterrence measures such as this have been used throughout history and are undoubtedly effective. Zero tolerance, whilst an incredibly polemic subject, is used because it works. This only becomes problematic when corruption is high which, as you mentioned, is apparent within the society as it would allow men and women to be selectively chosen to be 'made an example of' by those who want to pursue some preconceived political agenda. Yet there is no doubting that for the stability of the country, the Mexican Government must do something other than provide the public with rhetorical speeches.