Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smirk]

So in terms of global drug trade how significant is this? Did this guy have some overwhelming monopoly that covered 60%+ of all illegal drug shipments, or are we talking about .01%, but that tiny share just happened to be the biggest stake that any one person held? Is this significant beyond the symbolic gesture of being able to overcome corruption?

Well, he was the head of the Sinaloa Cartel, which is one of the biggest and most organized in the Americas. Relevant quote out of an article from last year:

Even more impressive is its global reach. Sinaloa operatives have been arrested from Egypt to Argentina and from Europe to Malaysia. Properties attributed to El Chapo Guzman have been seized in Europe and South America. US law enforcement reports that the group is now present in all major American cities. Recent US court documents involving the case of Vicente Zambada-Niebla, Mayo Zambada's son, even suggest the Sinaloa cartel now controls the cocaine trade in Australia.

Earlier this month, Chicago named El Chapo Guzman public enemy No. 1, the first to receive that title since the city’s legendary crime boss, Al Capone.

Sinaloa's share in the drug market is titanic. Even by the most sober estimates, Mexican drug trafficking amounts to over $6 billion per year, with El Chapo's Sinaloa cartel controlling an estimated half of that market, raking in billions each year.

I'm not sure how accurate those numbers are; working on finding more info. But yeah. Serious business. They'll need to deal with him to try and take the organization apart, but at the same time he's well-known enough that I don't think they'll be able to give him a cushy cell. Example must be made, after all.

[Max White]

A soft cell might not even be his highest priority. He is damaged goods, so to speak, and even if he never says a word to police people will wonder. If he has been arrested I have little doubt that other high ups are also within reach, and when they get arrested some people are going to assume Guzman made some deal, regardless of if he does or not. I imagine either his first priority is assuring himself of protection from his own members, or he is some sort of sociopath... Both possible options, among others.
Were I in his position I would be making myself some new friends, but then again I'm not the kind of person who can manage an international drug cartel, so what do I know? Maybe he will manage to serve minimum time and walk out just as powerful as ever.

[Bauglir]

Pretty sure minimum time is likely to wind up being multiple consecutive life sentences. Or, well, technically death would probably be a shorter sentence, but I don't know if it's going to be on the table.

[FearfulJesuit]

Pretty sure minimum time is likely to wind up being multiple consecutive life sentences. Or, well, technically death would probably be a shorter sentence, but I don't know if it's going to be on the table.

Life imprisonment in the places they're going to be sending him is a fate worse than death. Why even try for the death penalty, really?

[Bauglir]

Pretty sure minimum time is likely to wind up being multiple consecutive life sentences. Or, well, technically death would probably be a shorter sentence, but I don't know if it's going to be on the table.

Life imprisonment in the places they're going to be sending him is a fate worse than death. Why even try for the death penalty, really?

Oh, I agree, I was just making an exception on the technicality that imprisonment for the duration of death penalty proceedings (a decade or two) could be shorter than life imprisonment. So that might technically be the "minimum sentence" mentioned earlier. As I said on page 1, I prefer the life imprisonment option.

[Sheb]

PTW

[Zangi]

Even while in jail, he is going to cost tax payers a chunk of change.

[Bauglir]

Even while in jail, he is going to cost tax payers a chunk of change.

Cheaper than an execution, though. I'm happy to pay it, in this case.

[WillowLuman]

At this point in the argument, people might say "Why not do away with all that bureaucratic nonsense and instead institute summary executions?"

I don't want to attack a point no one's making, I just don't want anybody to make that point. Because we would be in a bad way if the US were a place where summary executions were possible.

[DJ]

You can use forced labour to recoup some of the imprisonment expenses. And I reckon putting this guy in a coal mine without protective gear would be appropriate.

[Frumple]

... you can, but there's serious goddamn problems with letting people profit (or just offset expenses, really) off of penal slavery. Namely, you get an industry that has a vested interest in making sure there's a sufficiently large body of prisoners they can continue to make margin.

Less of an issue, perhaps, with a case like that guy who's never going to get out, but better not the let the precedent stand. Another one, anyway.

[ibot66]

I don't really get why we don't just use a bullet to the head for executing people. It's cheaper than lethal injection, quicker, and sometimes less painful.

[Zangi]

I don't really get why we don't just use a bullet to the head for executing people. It's cheaper than lethal injection, quicker, and sometimes less painful.

Cause it is 'barbaric' or 'not great for spectating'... some political humanist non-sense for all I know.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, I'll agree on that one. If everything goes according to plan there's no pain or anything, but it's a lot harder to ensure that this is the case than it is with bullets. Pharmacology is complicated. And there've been examples of the procedure done in spite of, say, a lack of one of the required injections, which is not an okay thing. Of course, the cost of the actual injection is trivial compared to the rest of the associated costs, but it's a dumb idea from the perspective of trying to be humane.

[DJ]

Guillotine is quick and it either works perfectly or fails completely, no real risk of maiming instead of killing (which is there, albeit small, with bullets).