I've heard some people respond approvingly, along the lines of, "Serves him right, he shouldn't act like he doesn't know who's paying him." As much as I think Mexico should be doing more to isolate organized crime from the legitimate economy, tossing musicians in jail is something else altogether. (I'm assuming Ayala and company don't have a deeper business relationship with the men for whom they were playing.) Encouraging businessmen to know their associates well and avoid those with criminal associations might impose some difficulties on those affected, but it provides a concrete benefit to the nation as a whole. In contrast, there is no broader salutary effect when musicians are scared off of doing narco-parties.
More broadly, the lack of continued debate about the 40-day arraigo provision is unfortunate. The practice hasn't inspired much backlash, although it occasionally seems to be abused. About a year ago, 22-year-old Laura Zúñiga, despite having no criminal background, was sent to jail for almost 40 days because she was caught in the company of alleged drug traffickers. Of course, running around with these guys was not a good idea, and the government has the obligation to determine what she was up to, but 40 days? That seems entirely unnecessary. (More here.) That doesn't make the arraigo a bad idea, but the government has not been pushed to defend the provision, for instance by offering examples of when the 40 days turned out to be vital to obtaining a conviction. But even if one accepts the need for the arraigo, greater vigilance in condemning its excesses would be welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment