Solve murder cases

Currently, there are numerous countries in Latin America and the Caribbean with absurdly high impunity rates. Less than 10% of murders and other violent crimes are solved in some countries, and there are several countries where reaching a 90% impunity rate would be a significant improvement. Nearly every expert agrees that one key step to reducing the rates of violent crime is to reduce impunity.

This is an area where the region should aim big. There is no reason to believe that this problem is unsolvable. Let's flip the current number around and make the goal for every country in the region that 75% of new homicide cases are investigated and prosecuted. Set the timeline at 10 years. 

I'm tempted to say "solve every murder," because the thought of allowing one out of four killers go free is rather depressing. I also hate to say "new homicide cases" because that leaves a lot of cold cases open from the past. Still, I want to set something that is both ambitious and yet still achievable if a significant effort is taken.

Even in the US today, only about 60% of murders are solved according to national police statistics, and in some urban areas that number is under 30%. The US should be a part of this program and would be measured against whether they could reach the goal as well.

Beyond political will, what would it take to get 75% of all new homicide cases solved and prosecuted? I think some of the basics are recommendations that most analysts already know:

1) More and better police

2) More and better prosecutors and judges

3) Improved witness protection programs

4) Improved statistics on violent crime

5) Information sharing within countries and across countries

6) Forensics labs

7) Better technology

8) Etc. I'm sure I'm missing several items

Many of those recommendations are already being nominally implemented by countries, at times with the help of the US and other international donors. I'm sure the first criticism some will have of this post is that "We're already doing x!" One problem here is of scale and ambition. Sure, Mexico (with its impunity rate around 97% according to independent analysts) just funded a new forensics lab and has new police training programs, but does anyone think the resources currently being spent by Mexico and the US will help the country reach 75% of murders solved within 10 years? No. I think setting the ambitious goal should help us realize that the current level of resources spent on these recommendations is nowhere near enough. More needs to be done in all of these areas.

Additionally, the challenge is making these recommendations effective in an environment where corruption is an ever-present problem. To counter this, I'm going to make a more unorthodox recommendation: The hemisphere needs a regional crime-solving unit working in parallel with national authorities. While others have recommended a group similar to the CICIG for Honduras, El Salvador or for the Central American Northern Triangle, I'm recommending setting up a region-wide group that any country can work with. This regional group should include police, investigators, prosecutors, scientists, IT people and some very gutsy leadership. Rather than wait for approval of one or more countries, the hemisphere's leaders (specifically, the US, Mexico and Brazil) should build the group first and give it the resources to start investigations, which should encourage countries to join in.

To summarize:

1) We need to set the ambitious goal to end impunity. My suggestion is 75% of all new homicide cases solved within ten years.

2) We need to collect and allocate the resources to match the goal.

3) We need to organize and fund a regional organization that can investigate violent crimes, preferably in coordination with other governments.

A virtual Summit of the Americas 2

When I wrote the previous post on using video teleconferencing for presidential meetings, I didn't realize that one was already planned. Oppenheimer reports that the presidents of Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Chile recently held a virtual summit over video teleconference.

That's a great start and more can be done. These don't just have to be private discussions among president. Public events and participation by civil society and the business community are possible as well.

A parallel OAS, but no presidents allowed

One of the common complains about the OAS and the democracy charter is that it is an organization of presidents. They'll jump up and down if a president is threatened, but they generally ignore cases in which legislatures, judiciaries or civil society is threatened by the executive branch.

This has long been an area for potential reform, but never moves forward. Why? Presidents are the ones in charge and don't want to restrict their own power.

Instead of continuing to try and fail to reform, what if legislatures simply decided to create a separate and parallel organization to the OAS. The legislatures around the hemisphere that wanted to participate could send representatives to a big Summit that paralleled the Summit of the Americas. They could agree to hold meetings and to pass resolutions as a group.

There are numerous political and constitutional challenges to creating such an organization. The first challenge is that presidents wouldn't allow it. Across the hemisphere, presidents would veto or otherwise block any potential legislative agreements to join such an organization. In some places, the legislatures may have to join over the president's objection, which could create tensions.

If just a few countries' congresses could get together to begin the group, declaring it the co-equal branch of regionalism to the OAS and working to fill in the gaps where the OAS fails, it could gain some momentum. They could pressure the OAS to reform its policies or they could just start working on their own to improve hemispheric relations in areas where presidents can't.

At its strongest, it's a regional push against the presidentialism that dominates much of the Americas. Some particularly powerful presidents might even call it a type of regional coup or revolution. At its weakest, the organization fails. But it's not a particularly resource intensive initiative. Why not try to form it and fail rather than list reasons why it won't succeed and never try.

A virtual Summit of the Americas

Sure, there are benefits to in-person meetings. The presidents of the Americas should continue to meet every three years.

But with technology today, they could also hold public or private video chats as often as they want.

So, while maintaining the in-person Summit every three years, why not do a virtual Summit once every year? Get all the presidents in the hemisphere on to a Google Hangout. Have an agenda prepared. Have them talk publicly. Then have them do a few private meetings.

This certainly can apply to other multilateral or even bilateral events. The president of Brazil doesn't need to fly to Colombia to do a bilateral press conference. They could do a virtual one today. The presidents of ALBA don't all need to run to Caracas. They could just set up a multi-person conference.

As I said, I don't think we should replace all in-person meetings. But why aren't there more virtual meetings among high-level officials that include a public component like a press conference? It's completely possible today and should be done.