THIS WEEK, the debate on the bill to bring multicrime criminal gangs to justice, such as ‘Clan del Golfo’, which proposes jail sentences for its leaders and members of no more than eight years, as well as another series of very broad penal and penitentiary prerogatives.
As is known, the project generated mixed reactions, starting with criticism from the Prosecutor’s Office, the Attorney General’s Office and other sectors that warned that it could be generating an impunity scheme for drug traffickers and those guilty of other serious crimes.
EL NUEVO SIGLO spoke with former attorney Carlos Gustavo Arrieta and former prosecutor Luis Camilo Osorio regarding the scope of the initiative, which would apply to criminal gangs such as the “Clan del Golfo” and “Los Pachenca.”
Faced with the same four questions, ceveryone has a different position.
THE NEW CENTURY: How do you evaluate the project? Positive and negative points?
CARLOS GUSTAVO ARRIETA: I don’t like the project. Although it is true that we Colombians want peace, comprehensive peace, we want there to be no more violence or crime, it seems to me that doing it this way is not convenient, because basically what we are looking for is a kind of submission that is not It is a submission, it is a transition to a process that I do not quite understand how it is going to be, with an excessive generosity that does not make sense.
I am one of those who think that if it is true that we want peace, there are certain values and principles that we cannot sacrifice. We cannot allow criminals to go virtually unpunished, as is the case in this case with minimum sentences, with sanctions that could be easily redeemed, in such a way that they are not effective.
ENS: Are Prosecutor Barbosa and Prosecutor Cabello right with their criticisms of the project that it could derive extreme benefits for drug traffickers and those guilty of serious crimes?
CGA: I think both the prosecutor and the attorney are right. The bill is granting extreme benefits to drug traffickers, which are not commensurate with the seriousness of the crimes they have committed. As I said before: it is good to seek peace with all criminal groups, but not at the cost of such a great sacrifice that implies, in practice, a pardon or an amnesty for their crimes.
ENS: Do you think that leaving 6% of the assets of illicit origin to the leaders of the criminal gangs will lead them to hand over all their properties to repair the victims? Isn’t it sending a bad message to society?
CGA: It seems serious to me to leave 6% of the assets to these gentlemen. It’s like, in some way, validating the principle that ‘crime does pay’. That 6% may seem very little as a percentage, but it can be a lot of money, or it can be little… it doesn’t matter, but allowing them to keep the fruits of their crimes seems to me to make no sense in society. That has never been done, that I know of at least, in Colombia. It certainly has never been tolerated. It is one thing that the peace process to recover assets from criminals has not worked, and another thing is that the law authorizes a percentage like that. In such a way, I believe that it should not be applied, it is a very bad message that is sent to society.
ENS: Is this bill broader in benefits than the Justice and Peace Law or the Peace Agreement with the FARC?
CGA: It seems to me that this is the bill with the greatest known benefits than any other, from the era of subjugation to the peace process. Looking at all the processes and of all kinds, all have granted some kind of benefits, those are inherent. But in this case they are of an enormous permissibility that does not make any sense.
THE NEW CENTURY: How do you evaluate the project? Positive and negative points?
LUIS CAMILO OSORIO: The idea is laudable, we seek the absence of crime and it seems to me that it is a scenario that points in that direction. There, some issues that were very important to take into account have been refined and some scenarios that would be constructive and positive are being consolidated.
There are several issues to analyze. In the first place, to see if there really is a will to stop committing crimes and we are not leaving open spaces for others to do the same and for this to become a problem similar to that of coca eradication, which what it became was an instrument that, although it could have been made with the best good intentions, stimulated to continue planting. This because there was a permanent benefit for those who were getting out of criminal activities. So, I think we have to plug all the possibilities that this becomes a scenario that stimulates greater crime.
If the project, as a laudable goal, allows the elimination of criminal activities, then congratulations. Criminal policy stems from the duty to prevent crime, rather than combat or defeat it.
ENS: Are Prosecutor Barbosa and Prosecutor Cabello right with their criticisms of the project that it could derive extreme benefits for drug traffickers and those guilty of serious crimes?
LCO: Of course that danger exists, it is latent and they are absolutely right to turn on the alerts, the red lights of danger. But if the necessary adjustments are made and the forecasts of the case are taken to verify that these people outside the law stop committing crimes, that is a key goal for all Colombians.
ENS: Do you think that leaving 6% of the assets of illicit origin to the leaders of the criminal gangs will lead them to hand over all their properties to repair the victims? Isn’t it sending a bad message to society?
LCO: Much has been said that this is absolutely complex and there is a danger that all those scenarios that we have already described in the previous questions will open up. That is to say, that it be a stimulus to continue committing crimes, with the certainty that something of that remains to help wash away those sources of crime. So, it is something to which you have to pay full attention, and be very careful, because it is a tool with different interpretations and some very perverse ones.
ENS: Is this bill broader in benefits than the Justice and Peace Law or the Peace Agreement with the FARC?
LCO: Justice and Peace is an instrument about which very little has been said. President Álvaro Uribe proposed it simply by telling the bases (of the armed groups): stop the criminal activity, join life and we will get along with the leaders of those organizations. It was possible to demobilize 20,000 guerrillas and eliminate paramilitaries in Colombia. It was a very simple formula, there was no special justice, but the same expanded ordinary justice.
Then came the agreement with the FARC, where some conditions were given that, unfortunately, were not met from the beginning, and finally it was left with the very complex and contradictory element that when the entire country was asked if it agreed, there was the surprise that this consultation was defeated because it had not been incorporated to all Colombians.