Venezuela’s violence crisis
Despite the best efforts of Hugo Chavez, it seems the threat of a US invasion is not the number-one concern of Venezuelans these days.
Rather it is fear of violent crime. And Chavez’s failure to deal with it may be a factor in Sunday’s regional elections in Venezuela.
In Caracas, the vast majority of people live in fear of being victimized, pollsters and criminologists say.
Fifty-six percent of those recently polled by Datanalisis, a Caracas polling firm, said crime was their top concern, ahead of inflation and economic problems. And a poll by a well-known sociologist who studies crime, Roberto Briceño-León, showed that 64 percent feared being attacked in the streets.
Juan Forero of The Washington Post spoke with Miriam Sánchez, a resident of a Caracas slum. Unbelievably and horribly, four of her sons have been shot dead– three since Chavez took office in 1999.
Although previously a supporter of Chavez, she is now considering voting against his candidates in the election.
Though she acknowledges improvements spurred by the government’s generous social spending, Sánchez said she has little confidence that the streets will be getting safer anytime soon.
“I get angry because I feel that Chávez is the one to blame for everything that is happening because he is not watching out for Caracas,” she said. “He should be watching more television to see how much crime there is and all the killings there are.”
Forero reports that “for three years now, the government has kept homicide statistics secret, although the data are made public by crime research organizations and criminologists who receive the information surreptitiously from law enforcement sources.”
Venezuela was hardly a murder-free paradise before Chavez came to power. But in 1998, the last year before he became president, the murder rate stood at 19 per 100,000. By 2007 it had soared to 48. In that same year, in the ultra-violent United States of some Europeans’ imagination, the murder rate was 5.6– still too high, of course.
Is it unfair to compare Venezuela’s murder rate to that of the United States? Absolutely. So let’s compare it to another South American country with a reputation for unbridled violent crime– namely Brazil.
Over approximately the same period, Brazil’s homicide rate has held reasonably steady at between 25 and 30 per 100,000, and has declined somewhat. In Brazil’s largest city, São Paulo, homicides have declined sharply and in 2005 were actually below the national rate.
According to a report in The Economist, the drop is due largely to stricter gun control, better policing and changing demographics.
Forero reports Venezuela’s capital and largest city has an astounding murder rate of 130 per 100,000.
In Caracas, perhaps the biggest problem is the police, who are considered ineffective and brutal and sometimes are directly involved in crime. Concern over police prompted the government, under Interior Minister Jesse Chacón, to establish a commission to reform the police in 2006.
The commission, which included representatives of the business community, criminologists, neighborhood representatives and officials from the judicial sector, issued a report that highlighted police corruption and proposed reforms. But crime experts here said the findings were ignored after Chacón, who had championed the commission, was replaced as minister by Pedro Carreño in January 2007.
Instead, the government approved a law that will merge police departments into one national force under a central command.
So Chavez has been in power nearly 10 years. Thanks to (until recently) record oil prices, he has had huge amounts of money to deal with what is clearly a national crisis. Why hasn’t he?
Comments
| 20 November 2008, 4:49 pm |
Ah, a bit of regular electioneering from Gene now. Politicians should get a grip of crime or be voted out! A familiar refrain. That’s right - also true of Chavez the dictator, autocrat, strongman, fascist, communist, authoritarian etc., all those things that he’s supposed to be. The power of the ballot box.
| 20 November 2008, 4:59 pm |
It is interesting to note that violent crime has surged during the ten years he has been increasing welfare benefits.
| 20 November 2008, 5:15 pm |
The drop in violent crime in Sao Paulo is interesting. As well as the factors Gene mentioned there have been some innovative social programmes by an NGO called Sou do Paz, which has done very good work with both the police and community groups. Also the main drug gang PCC has basically consolidated its control of the city - so there are fewer shoot outs.
Violence in Rio is as bad as ever unfortunately and the problems are getting worse in the sattelite towns around Brasilia. Also if you look at Mexico and Colombia you can see that they are also suffering increasing problems - so it is not fair to blame it all on Chavez. But you just would think that Venezuela should be doing more given all of its oil money.
| 20 November 2008, 5:23 pm |
indeed Conor, but we might suppose that IF Chavez was spending so much money in pursuing 21st century Socialism and dealing with Valenzuela’s social ills, that it MIGHT have had some affect on reducing violent crime?
that was the old notion, make a serious effort to reduce poverty and social ills in a society and crime should go down?
| 20 November 2008, 5:57 pm |
It can only get worse, possibly much worse. Venezuela’s economy is about to take a dive.
It is shocking that Venezuela, amidst an oil boom, has a higher murder rate than Colombia, which is caught between a drug war and thousands of communist guerillas.
Of course expats living in tax havens like Hong Kong are unlikely to be too bothered by it all, are they old chap?
| 20 November 2008, 5:57 pm |
Yes indeed. Incidentally, does someone have comparative poverty and inequality statistics for Venezuela and other Latin American countries? (I am being lazy here).
Lula’s government has reduced both in Brazil - through a combination of economic growth and the Bolsa Familia programme - although Brazil is far more unequal and has worse social indicators on things like education than Chile (which has a far more liberalised economy).
The violence in Brazil really exploded at the end of the dictatorship, but I wonder the extent to which it is rooted in a simple poverty/inequality relationship and to what extent things like the populist culture that Vargas, Peron and Chavez personify have had an affect.
| 20 November 2008, 6:21 pm |
According to here http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2008/09/murder-rates-around-world-and-in-iraq.html the current murder rate in Iraq for is 24 per 100000 (based on rates since June).
So Venezuela is twice as bad - who’d have thought it ? I thought it was a workers paradise. Gangsters paradise more like it.
The endemic high levels of violence in some South and Central American countries requires some pragmatic non-ideological analysis I reckon.
| 20 November 2008, 6:26 pm |
The most remarkable thing is that Venezuela’s murder rate is now much higher than Colombia’s which used to be the archetypal violent country.
| 20 November 2008, 6:38 pm |
Thanks MMM. So Brazil is about as dangerous as Iraq (an argument that I can use with my wife the next time that I get offered a job there). Also interesting to see how low the murder rate was in Zimbabwe - and apparently no one at all got murdered in Burma! Where is Afghanistan in the ratings?
It is not so surprising that Colombia has got safer as the police and military are regaining control of the country, but the prevalence of Latin American countries at the top of the chart is very stark.
It would be interesting to compare Venezuela to Angola and Nigeria as they are both also ‘resource curse’ countries.
| 20 November 2008, 6:39 pm |
Typical neocon propaganda from the NYT, here they are supporting you Uribe loving thugs http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/opinion/18tue1.html?_r=2
“for three years now, the government has kept homicide statistics secret, although the data are made public by crime research organizations and criminologists who receive the information surreptitiously from law enforcement sources.””
So it is a secret… but not really a secret?
“Forero reports Venezuela’s capital and largest city has an astounding murder rate of 130 per 100,000. ”
If Caracas has a murder rate of 130 per 100,000 then the national average then that makes it over 7800 murdered (130* 60), that is almost the national total you freaking idiots, now you are telling me that crime is now nowhere to be seen oujtside the capital?
“the current murder rate in Iraq for is 24 per 100000 (based on rates since June).”
Silly personal puppet, that murder rate excludes the casualties of war, like always shoddy body counts from the puppet govt.
Believe it or not you also prove against your point, Crime used to be the number one corncern for 80% of the population in polls last year, 2008 there has been a scaledown from that record year.
| 20 November 2008, 6:56 pm |
Conor - obviously a lone Westerner is going to be in a lot more danger in Baghdad than on Copacabana beach (I’ve been to one of these places but not the other…)
Though if you ended up in a favela in the hills you might be be in trouble… if you weren’t on a “favela tour” or whatever.
| 20 November 2008, 7:27 pm |
Multiple killings – from two to half a dozen or more members of the same family, or of the same gang – are relatively common in Brazil, certainly more common than in European countries. In Sao Paulo in the nineties, from time to time there would be reports in the local media that police stations compiling crime statistics would count each multiple killing or “chacina” as a single crime with a single victim, in order to camouflage the very high murder rate. Whether this still goes on I don’t know. Similarly, I don’t know whether the trick was played only in Brazil or in other Latin American countries as well. In any case, the statistics need to be taken with several grains of salt.
| 20 November 2008, 7:35 pm |
No shit. Leftist government increases crime, just take a trip to Chicago.
| 20 November 2008, 9:19 pm |
That link of MMM’s is complete nonsense. The main source from the “Professor” is wikipedia. One of the comments ably debunks it.
| 20 November 2008, 9:46 pm |
National murder and crime rates can differ a lot how they are accomplished, there can be contrary interests if the result shall be more or less. Police might want high numbers to get more money or lower to boost them self as efficient, opposition interests want to attack sitting gov. or gov paint them self in efficient crime fighters. Some statistics is initial charge not the actual result of investigation and sentence.
Anyhow the statistics is pretty unambiguous, mostly poor countries in top with high murder rates and mostly fairly well of countries at bottom with low rates. Should probably also correlate with level of state and government corruption and confidence in public institutions.
Venezuelan government stopped releasing official homicide rates in 2003 — after the number of killings reached nearly 12,000 countrywide that year. Now they say it have dropped 28% first half of year I believe it was.
Even if leaked unofficial number are right or wrong it seems pretty unambiguous that the numbers are disturbingly high. US Dep. Of State International Travel Information is alarming with rampant risk of violent robbery.
stratfor.com say: Crime has been out of control in Caracas for more than two decades, but it has worsened markedly over the past five years. and While some elements of sophisticated organized crime and drug cartels operate in Caracas, most of the murders and kidnappings are conducted by gangs of young men in their teens and early 20s seeking money.
One can maybe suspect US Dep. Of State to be a bit biased the travel information on safety and crime on e.g. Iran, Belarus, Russia and North Korea is significantly different, least risk of crime for travelers is North Korea and Belarus. Even Zimbabwe seems a lot safer to travel according to US Dep. Of State even if there seems to be higher risk of crime.
| 20 November 2008, 11:09 pm |
Expropriators in a hurry, is all.
| 20 November 2008, 11:17 pm |
That link of MMM’s is complete nonsense. The main source from the “Professor” is wikipedia. One of the comments ably debunks it.
It is not “complete nonsense”, you tedious berk.
The comment to which you refer downgrades the Venezualan death rate to 45 per 100,000 yr-1. Which is lower than the 48 per 10,000 yr-1 figure quoted by the Washington Post.
And even using the higher 645 deaths per month figure he quotes for Iraq (higher even than the average for the last four months calculated from IBC figures - 594), this yields a death rate of 28 per 100,000 yr-1.
Whichever way you slice it, the death rate in Venezuela is substantially higher than in Iraq.
| 20 November 2008, 11:33 pm |
No doubt TheIdiot has a special secret Lancet-stylee info source giving him the 100x reality “alternative” current Iraq violent death figures.
Or have the Stoppers given up on that stuff ?
| 20 November 2008, 11:41 pm |
Genuine question - what has happened to that 655,000 Lancet figure that was sprayed around so profusely by Stoppers?
I haven’t heard it for a while. What’s the story?
| 21 November 2008, 5:29 am |
It is interesting to note that violent crime has surged during the ten years he has been increasing welfare benefits.
Yeah, it’s a disgrace. The poor a getting back little bit more, a few more benefits, a bit of land reform, minimum wage and all, and they are spending it all on guns and ammo!
I tell you what mate, don’t step foot in Sweden, or France, you’ll get your head blown off.
| 21 November 2008, 11:37 am |
Mark T
“Genuine question - what has happened to that 655,000 Lancet figure that was sprayed around so profusely by Stoppers?”
Fabulous question.
And it wasn’t just Stoppers. That ’survey’ was considered a unassailable truth by the BBC; screamed out at every opportunity, even when some of us were screaming back, “its not true”.
Then the screaming became too loud to ignore and it quietly disappeared, and was never mentioned again. No explanation. No apology.
The truth, eh?
| 21 November 2008, 11:45 am |
And it wasn’t just Stoppers. That ’survey’ was considered a unassailable truth by the BBC…
Same thing.
| 21 November 2008, 11:55 am |
‘Then the screaming became too loud to ignore and it quietly disappeared, and was never mentioned again. No explanation. No apology.
The truth, eh?’
Yeah! It reminds me of that other thing about Iraq, what was it, WMD or something?
No explanation. No apology. Most indecent.
| 21 November 2008, 1:24 pm |
Where was Flanker when we were talking about 911 conspiracy theories?
| 21 November 2008, 2:18 pm |
“It is shocking that Venezuela, amidst an oil boom, has a higher murder rate than Colombia, which is caught between a drug war and thousands of communist guerillas.”
And of course Venezuela aids the terrorists in Colombia.
| 21 November 2008, 2:19 pm |
I’m not going to discuss the Lancet with people who cite figures from a blog whose main source is wikipedia. I’d be interested if anyone wants to make a serious estimate of the monthly death toll in Iraq, and a comparison with Venezuela - but this isn’t it. Life is too short to debunk crap like this.
| 21 November 2008, 2:35 pm |
TheIdiot, you obviously have nothing to contribute to this discussion.
Unless you can come up with a link to an alternative sensible source re the current death toll in Iraq I suggest you p*** off.
Dissing everything on wikipedia as a debating point is just another example of your intellectual dishonesty and general stupidity.
| 21 November 2008, 3:00 pm |
Wikipedia is OK for verifiable facts, but for contentious stats like this, its not. Your source is just selectively presenting an argument he wants to make - its not reliable data. I’m happy to conceed that neither you nor I have provided any sensible source on this topic. Now, kindly conceed the same.
| 21 November 2008, 3:12 pm |
The blogger engram says (re argument Venezuela figures are too high) :
http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2008/09/murder-rates-around-world-and-in-iraq.html
“I used the Wikipedia figures because they tend to be lower (not higher) than some other estimates I came across (e.g., here). In addition, they cited sources, which allowed people to come up with their own estimates (as you tried to do). When an article is carefully documented like that, it has credibility. If you know of a source that yields even lower estimates than these, do tell. I’ll happily use those in my next post. For now, the Wikipedia numbers are about the lowest I can find overall (though they are consistent with many other estimates I found). But if there is another list of violent death rates for countries around the world that is well documented and that comes up with much lower figures, I’d appreciate the link.”
He’s being serious and trying to find the correct figures. You’re not. All you have said is “he’s wrong because he uses wikipedia”. How pathetic.
I suggest you are a useless and tedious dishonest troll whose recent absence from this blog has been widely welcomed.
| 21 November 2008, 3:13 pm |
“I’m happy to conceed that neither you nor I have provided any sensible source on this topic. Now, kindly conceed the same.”
Irie, the data provided here is more sensible that what you have provided, because some data, even if contentious, is more sensible than none.
| 21 November 2008, 3:14 pm |
It is also more sensible, if I might observe, than the response ‘neo-con’ etc.
| 21 November 2008, 3:31 pm |
“Irie, the data provided here is more sensible that what you have provided, because some data, even if contentious, is more sensible than none.”
Therefore, until you prove otherwise, my data says I have the biggest brain in London.
| 21 November 2008, 3:42 pm |
Flanker, the Caracas homicide rate of 130 per 100,000 is an official statistic. Therefore, the real rate could be higher.
| 21 November 2008, 3:45 pm |
TheIrie, what you did was read down the comments until you found one that sounded convincing which rejected the study. Then you stopped reading. Had you kept reading, you would see where you have gone wrong.
Also, the source is not “wikipedia”. The wikipedia article itself has sources.
You are obviously not interested in doing anything beyond putting in the minimal effort to come up with any basis for rejecting what you don’t want to hear.
Like Flanker and Benjbot, who come in here, casually dismiss things they don’t like, sneer and leave.
A bit overstaffed on that sort aren’t we?
| 21 November 2008, 3:48 pm |
Here’s one of the wikipedia sources for the Venezuelan violent death figures :
http://www.chacao.gov.ve/plan180/anodespues.pdf
The sources are Venezuelan govt agencies. The website is .gov.ve.
How is that not a valid source exactly TheIdiot ?
| 21 November 2008, 4:41 pm |
From what I have read, over the past few years, the Brazilians have some fairly radical methods of suppressing crime and anti-social behaviour.
| 21 November 2008, 4:47 pm |
OK, Irie,
“Therefore, until you prove otherwise, my data says I have the biggest brain in London.”
Well, I have no objection to that being the case.
But Fuero probably has been to Venezuela, has interviewed Caracans and, given that, inter alia, the Washington Post, based on a previous record, has a better reputation than you for providing international news and information generally, is a more reliable source than you as regards Venezuelan government sources.
By your reckoning, all news is not ’sensible’ until proven otherwise.
| 21 November 2008, 5:26 pm |
As an aside on the 2006 Lancet paper, it has now been cited by 50 other papers, showing its usefulness for opening up debate and developing this area of science. Most of the papers are behind paywalls (despite being in the main publicly funded) but seem to show that the main street bias was far higher than expected. This is an important finding because other studies which use the same methodology but are less thoroughly studied than the Iraq study may also be wrong in the same way, and future studies can be planned to avoid this effect.
| 21 November 2008, 6:47 pm |
I’m not going to discuss the Lancet with people who cite figures from a blog whose main source is wikipedia. I’d be interested if anyone wants to make a serious estimate of the monthly death toll in Iraq, and a comparison with Venezuela - but this isn’t it.
What are you on about?
The estimate for the Iraqi monthly death toll comes from Iraq Body Count.
The figure for the Venezuelan deaths/100,000 yr-1 comes from the Washington Post.
Neither of which is wikipedia.
Write a comment