Fortunately, now you can read Geoffrey Ramsey of InSight Crime's critique of Farah's piece.
Here are a few more things to consider. As Ramsey rightfully points out, the government seems to have offered very little to the gang leaders in return for stopping the mayhem. Thirty leaders were transferred to better prisons and are now living with better prison conditions. While that is great for the imprisoned leaders, I can't imagine that it is going to be enough for thousands of other gang members who are not incarcerated. How many of them are going to be satisfied with entry-level jobs and remedial education classes?
It's also true that no leaders were freed nor did any receive amnesty.What do you think? Should the government offer reduced sentences, even amnesty, in return for intelligence on organized crime, drug trafficking, and corruption in public and private institutions? In the past, we've heard stories that the gangs were committing murders at the behest of others - organized crime, political assassinations, etc.
Finally, what would be so bad about having these organized groups that engaged in murder, extortion, rape, and other criminal activities sign a peace agreement, receive an amnesty, and then transform themselves into political actors competing for elections?
Fears that the two largest street gangs in El Salvador are taking advantage of a proclaimed cease fire to reorganize and expand their overall influence are largely unfounded, as both the government’s strategy and the structure of the gangs themselves appear to be keeping this in check.Basically, Farah's piece just lacks evidence. There's not much evidence that crime has increased since the gang truce. There's also little evidence that the gangs have the financial resources to become serious political actors now or in the near future. While I'm sure Farah has heard from some gang members that they are interested in political power, it's unclear how widespread a notion this is. It's possible; there just isn't much evidence for such a negative perspective on the truce.
Here are a few more things to consider. As Ramsey rightfully points out, the government seems to have offered very little to the gang leaders in return for stopping the mayhem. Thirty leaders were transferred to better prisons and are now living with better prison conditions. While that is great for the imprisoned leaders, I can't imagine that it is going to be enough for thousands of other gang members who are not incarcerated. How many of them are going to be satisfied with entry-level jobs and remedial education classes?
It's also true that no leaders were freed nor did any receive amnesty.What do you think? Should the government offer reduced sentences, even amnesty, in return for intelligence on organized crime, drug trafficking, and corruption in public and private institutions? In the past, we've heard stories that the gangs were committing murders at the behest of others - organized crime, political assassinations, etc.
Finally, what would be so bad about having these organized groups that engaged in murder, extortion, rape, and other criminal activities sign a peace agreement, receive an amnesty, and then transform themselves into political actors competing for elections?
Oh...
