Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Roverticus

(74 posts)
15. You are right
Mon Aug 13, 2012, 01:45 PM
Aug 2012

Technically, Mano Dura means tough on crime approach. The state doesn't explicitly sponsor extrajudicial killings, but they are a sad byproduct of a tougher policy, which might be more inclined to overlook such actions. Also both sides are just scared shitless. The police fear the near meteoric rise of street gangs, the youth fear the gangs and the police, but often end up joining the gangs because of persistently high unemployment, lack of parental figures due to immigration, or shear intimidation and peer pressure. The police don't know who to go after the gangs because the problem hides among the youth population, so they just kill anyone fitting the bill and pray it makes the streets safer in the morning.

Also there's scenario C, where police end up being corrupted or worse killed as a display of power by some big shot Mexican cartel looking for influence in Central America. My guess is police are more likely to be paid off by Sinaloa and tortured into submission by the Zetas. But that is in no way a rule, as both these cartels are horrendously violent. Given their cruelty and what's happened in Mexico over the last six years, a Mano Duro policy is more likely to elicit retaliation from organized crime, further increasing police paranoia, which leads to more extrajudicial killings.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Latin America»Cocaine’s Flow Is Uncheck...»Reply #15