The Guatemalan maras, estimated to have a joint membership of about 9,000, have been blamed for about 100 killings, many deliberately gruesome, a month. The main targets of the joint police-military patrols were the largest gangs: Mara Salvatrucha, Mara 18 and La Máquina. By the end of the month they had reported 541 arrests - 247 of Mara Salvatrucha, 215 of Mara 18, 14 of La Máquina, and the rest belonging to smaller groups.
Shortlived success
As a success, this was remarkably shortlived: within 72 hours of being arrested, the gang members had to be handed over to the judiciary for prosecution. In the majority of cases this meant that most would be immediately set free, since they could only be charged with membership of an illegal organisation or disorderly conduct - neither of which merits being remanded in custody. By 3 August about 200 M more than a third - of the detainees had been released.
If Flores has his way, this will change. The president had openly admitted that the military-police drive would not suffice to eradicate the maras; the first phase of the campaign, he said, was only intended to 'rescue' the neighbourhoods the gangs had made their own. Real success, he added, would only come with the passage of new legislation - which he only submitted to congress after giving the army and police the order to move in. His bill sharply increases the penalties for a number of offences, but most notably (emulating the law passed earlier by Honduras) makes mere membership of a mara a punishable offence.
Objections on legal & practical grounds
The bill has been strongly criticised by human rights organisations and a number of jurists. Jaime Martínez, of the Fundación de Estudios para la Aplicación del Derecho (Fespad, a private foundation that conducts research into the application of the law), says that it is fundamentally wrong to penalise a condition rather than an action. 'To make it a crime to be a marero, is tantamount to believing that being a vagrant or a homosexual is criminal.' Government officials reply that they have done no more than adapt US antiracketeering legislation.
Even the Catholic archbishop of San Salvador, Fernando Sáenz Lacalle, has pointedly reminded congressmen that 'if it is necessary to create special legislation, the proper steps must be taken, but keeping always within the framework of legality and the constitution.' Archbishop Sáenz is hardly 'soft' on the issue. Last week he said, 'This phenomenon of the maras is most worrying. The entire population has been terrorised by the events taking place, such as decapitation and mutilation of the victims, and other behaviours that create insecurity among the people. It is therefore necessary to act against them.'
Fespad does not confine its objections to that single flaw. It also make the point that the bill makes no provision for the rehabilitation of imprisoned mareros, when the Salvadorean constitution explicitly stipulates that the state must 'promote the reinsertion of persons who commit criminal offences.' In this Fespad is supported by the human rights institute of the Jesuit-run Universidad Centroamericana (UCA), whose director, Benjamín Cuéllar, says, 'You cannot establish the right to security by violating another constitutional right.'
Another eminently practical objection made by Fespad is that Flores's policy is encouraging false expectations because the policy will not yield the results the public wants. The reason? Because even if all the mareros were to be taken out of circulation, 'crime and insecurity will not disappear, since the maras are not responsible for all crimes.'
Uncertainty in congress
It is not at all certain that Flores's bill will be approved. The ruling Alianza Republicana Nacionalista (Arena) has announced its unconditional support. The main opposition party, the Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN, favourite to win the next elections) has dismissed it as rushed and improvised.
The difference will be made by the smaller parties. The middle-of-the-road Christian Democrats have already aligned themselves with Arena. The conservative Partido de Conciliación Nacional (PCN) has said that it has some reservations. All parties are under public pressure to appear tough on crime - indeed this is why Flores chose to embark upon high-profile, though ineffectual, action before having the legal instrument to back it up. It is highly probable, though, that attempts will be made to remove some of the more controversial provisions and insert some language providing for rehabilitation of offenders.
End of preview - This article contains approximately 771 words.
Subscribers: Log in now to read the full article
Not a Subscriber?
Choose from one of the following options
