The Use of Force Regulations and Equality Before the Law

El Líbero, March 8, 2024

When we talk about organized crime, sexual diversities and indigenous backgrounds matter only to those with a political agenda.

Article 19, numeral 2 of the Political Constitution of the Republic states that “in Chile there are no privileged persons or groups,” that “men and women are equal before the law,” and that “neither the law nor any authority may establish arbitrary differences.” It is commonly understood that the law is applied equally to all. However, this seems to be only theoretical, as this week a political authority proposed an amendment aimed at the differentiated application of the law governing the Rules on the Use of Force (RUF) in cases of women, sexual diversities, and indigenous peoples, among others.

The parliamentary discussion on the RUF has not been without controversy. First, regarding what was understood by proportionality and rationality and the political interpretation that official groups made of those concepts. But now the debate has shifted to another level, one that is more ideological and forgets that the law cannot contradict what is stipulated in the Constitution.

Also read by Pilar Lizana: The police agreement with Venezuela

Currently, there is a discussion about the rules on the use of force, the debate on legitimate defense and usurpations, and there are expectations to discuss intelligence, as well as the imminent creation of a new ministry due to the security crisis the country is experiencing.

The increase in the homicide rate alongside contract killings, the worsening conditions at the border due to the influx of criminal groups like the Tren de Aragua, kidnappings, and extortions have heightened the fear of Chileans and demonstrated that when it comes to organized crime, there are no differences based on sex, age, or nationality. Women leading national criminal groups like Sabrina the narco-influencer, elderly individuals involved in shootings due to their role in local drug trafficking, and teenagers turned into narco soldiers are already part of the national security landscape. So, if this is the case, why should we discuss a differentiated application of the law based on sex, age, and nationality? Would it not be better for decision-makers to focus on what is truly important rather than ideological matters?

Behind the project on the RUF lies a much deeper debate concerning the role of the Armed Forces and their constitutional mission.

The State has multiple instruments to respond to challenges; discussing their use is legitimate, but the debate must consider the underlying elements. When we talk about organized crime, sexual diversities and indigenous backgrounds matter only to those with a political agenda because, for criminals, these issues are not relevant. The only thing that matters is to strengthen the illicit business and make it grow. And if they must use violence, they do so without differentiation.

It is time to call things by their name and acknowledge that in the discussion on security, political agendas have been protagonists, clouding an urgent debate that, if politicized, only worsens the situation.Pilar Lizana

Senior Researcher, AthenaLab
Source:

El Líbero.