Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier
I guess from a business point of view the drug baron would make more of a profit, but then I'm hesitant to suggest that as I don't believe lighter sentences on mules would actually increase the amount of traffickers. If the existing penalty of 25 years is not deterring them, it means that hefty prison sentences are not the solution here and the tinkering with jail time a waste of time. What would make a huge difference though, are the chances of knowing that you'll most likely be caught.
|
I disagree. The fact that the existing penalty doesn't eliminate smuggling simply means there is some subset of the population that is willing to take on the risk for the money involved. If that risk were reduced, not only would more people be willing to take it on, but the cartels could pay them less to do so, thus smuggling more contraband for the same amount of money.
Quote:
|
At the end of the day, if they really wanted to (the local authorities) they could actually get most of the cocaine that leaves the continent. Non-corrupt airport officials would snag most of it, leaving only ships to really try and smuggle it. Smuggling controls are actually very effective, when the officials are capable of doing the job properly.
|
I don't know the situation that well, but wouldn't the airport officials on both sides (source country and destination country) need to be corrupt for that idea to be true? How would corrupt Peruvian officials help get smugglers through US customs, for example?
Quote:
|
There's no real point in inflicting punitive punishments on mules, when the root cause the barons and production facilities for the drug are right there in the country. Their production is illegal and I can't believe with modern technology that they can't be brought to justice, but we know why they're not brought to justice.
|
You might be right. I was just doubting the idea that lightening their sentences wouldn't be good for business from the cartel's POV.