Insecurity does not know social isolation
On Monday, April 20, it was reported as the most violent day of the year with 114 homicides. This note went a bit unnoticed by the natural reason that the issue of COVID-19 has monopolized all public attention: from the monitorThey aggregate health services, to those who seek scientific explanations or follow up on conspiracy theories. The second big topic is the consequence of the first, the economic crisis that comes to us, where the magnitude of this is the topic of discussion. How are you going to save jobs? What will happen to those who lose them? Is government response correctly or sufficient?
Immersed in this reality we have lost sight of the other epidemic that has been installed for many years among us, violence. Although the rhythm of economic and social activities have decreased, violence seems to be immune to the changes that have happened and remains with the same percentages. Security numbers point to an increase in crimes and the perception of people is in the same sense.
The president insists on making criminals called (practically criticizes journalists who think of his government) so that they voluntarily stop committing crimes. While it is not about fighting violence with more violence, as Martin Luther King said in his speech to accept the Nobel Peace Prize: “The response to the most transcendental of the political and moral dilemmas of our era: (s)The imperative need for men to come oppression and violence without paying in return with the same currency ”, the truth is that the president’s messages (less elegant, more colloquial) have not been successful either. The most recent of these was a "Bájenle, Bájen and think about your families, in yourself" that will take the same effect as the previous messages, nothing.
To understand if we really are going well or not in terms of security we can see the evolution of crimes supported by the data provided by the government itself through two instances. The first is the Executive Secretariat of the National Public Security System (SESNSP) that has within its functions bear the registration of alleged crimes committed and denounced before the authorities, the so -called criminal rate. Those responsible in the first instance of this registry are State Attorney General’s. For example, homicide figures are the most consistent because all deaths are mandatory. In fact, when compared global data on violence, the most used indicator is homicide because it is common practice of countries to record natural or violent deaths.
The National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI), also keeps a registration of homicides, based on forensic medical services and civil registry offices, with a higher time lag, but, we can say that more precise. There is also a daily report of malicious homicides resulting from an interdisciplinary group formed by the Secretariats of Citizen Security and Protection, National Defense, Navy and the Attorney General’s Office;Likewise, in the same daily report, homicides figures reported in the media are presented. Needless to say, the figures hardly coincide.
But there is also the case that there are reports of registered crimes that are not coincident with the crimes committed. This occurs when, for example, a person suffers from cell phone and wallet or purse. The reasons for not lifting a complaint are generally based on the delay so that the official report is lifted and on the lack of results by the authorities. It is considered a waste of time and without consequences that they catch thieves. This lack of coincidence is called a black figure.
In order to approach the crimes that are really committed, different surveys are carried out by the INEGI: the National Urban Security Survey (Ensu) that is carried out quarterly in 70 cities, where with figures of 2016, 2016, 2016,66 are committed.8% of crimes;and the National Survey of Victimization and Perception of Public Security (ENVIPE), which is raised annualized and the results are published in September.
Then we have several tools to measure the results in security matters, both in the part of crimes committed, as well as a statistic of crimes that are discussed based on the perception of citizenship. To illustrate why I point out that the epidemic of violence does not see the following information, comparing the most recent data with those reported the last month or quarter of the previous government.
The criminal index reported by the SESNSP indicates that the total crimes registered in November 2018 amounted to 160 thousand, while in January 2020 there were 165 thousand and by March the report indicates that almost 169 crimes were almost 169. An increase of 5% between 2019 and 2020. In the same period, homicides increased by 7%, to pass from 3,647 in November 2018, to the sum of 3,565 in January 2020 and end with 3,938 in March 2020. More dramatic is the increase in crimes against family, in November 2018, 15,587 crimes of this type were registered, by January 2020 they amounted to 18910, while March 2020 and counting the first 10 days of social isolation, the figure growsto 23,264, which means that between November 2018 and March 2020 the increase in crimes was 49%.
Citizen perception is in the same direction as can be seen in the National Urban Security Survey in its report of the first quarter of 2020. This survey indicates that in December 2018 the percentage of people who felt insecure was 73.7%, while in March 2020 it is 73.4%, there is practically the same perception as in 2018. The same survey points out that the cities with less perception of insecurity are San Pedro Garza in Nuevo León with 24% and Mérida with 24.8%, while the worst perception is used by Uruapan, Michoacán with 94.1% and Ecatepec, State of Mexico, with 94.4%, absolute horror figures. It is not surprising that in December 2018 the percentage of people who considered that crime was going to be equal or worse was 48.4% to register in March 2020 an increase to 66.5%.
As we can see, the situation around insecurity has not improved, and it may not improve much with everything and social isolation. The most worrying thing is that the federal government, as well as at the beginning of the pandemic crisis by COVID-19, does not atine what to do, and tries to send signals of optimism with speeches that frankly have no relation to reality, or perhaps it isTrue that singing that they have other data. For example, in the emerging report/plan that the president gave at the beginning of the month, he said that in the first quarter the homicides have decreased a 0.3%, when the official sensp figures (https: // drive.Google.com/file/d/1gdic4NTNR34ZPDKCLUHCP_8MPDWSN69S/VIEW) As we have seen, they point out that it has been the opposite, homicides have increased.
Behind this, let’s call it in an educated way, disagreement, there is a political communication strategy to point out that everything is going well and generate the perception of improvement, although reality is another. The president even pointed out publicly last December that there were governors who attended little or never to daily public security meetings at the state level (replica of those made at the federal level), accusing that while he has attended all there are governorsthat they have not gone to any. The problem is that there is no relationship between meetings and the decrease in crime. For example, the governor of Guanajuato has attended a single meeting and the homicides are on the rise, while the governor of Querétaro has never attended a single meeting, and the criminal indices recorded a decline;The governor of Baja California is the one who has attended these meetings with 36, while the State had the second highest homicide growth rate, meanwhile, the governor of Yucatan attended 34 meetings and the State has the rateof lower homicides in the country. Total, there is no relationship between meetings and decrease in crime.
This reflects the fact that the president more than the numbers and good strategies care that we are doing well, even if the reality has to be twisted. He accused the governors for not doing what he does without stopping analyzing whether what calls a strategy (meeting daily in the mornings) has a positive impact. The president remains firm that the security strategy is based on addressing the causes that originate violence (which should lead to the implementation of focused crime prevention programs, and expect to see results in the medium and long term) and inDo not allow corruption and impunity. The simplicity of the alleged strategy is not related to reality. Citizen perception and data reflect that insecurity not for even social isolation, how long will the speech that we are doing well last?
Leave feedback