Secuirty after the Economic collapse in Argentina

Don Williams said...

Ferfal 1) I had a question: Which areas in Argentina (and Buenos Aires) stayed reasonably safe after the crash and which ones became dangerous? Was it pretty much in accord with the income/wealth of the neighborhoods --i.e, rich neighborhoods were protected and safe whereas all poor areas became dangerous?   In most cases it was just like that, yes. Recoleta, Palermo, Barrio Norte, San Isidro, Belgrano, Martinez, these are some of the safest , and richest parts of Buenos Aires. Either the government itself placed momre police in those locations, or the neighbors themselves hired private security. Its still Argentina and NOTHING like a 1st world country. Right now I'm in Spain, and I can tell you, I had forgoten what a 1st world country looks like, how safe it is, etc. 2) Or did other factors have influence? For example, here in the USA law enforcement protection for most people is largely handled at the state and county level. Within some counties, especially in rural areas, there is another local government for defined towns and/or townships. Those small towns have their own police force.   The thing is, ad times get worse, that wont be enough. A dedicated sheriff can ame a difference, but it will eventually become a matter of money. Let me explain: Eventually that sheriff will need more resources, more manpower, more technology, and so on, so it will be clear that the poorest the neighborhood is, good intentions arent enough, you'll need more budget to keep the levels of security. 3) Does Argentina have a similar government structure? Is so, did the compact, independent towns provide better protection to their people compared to the larger areas/political units policed by more remote officals? Similar to the way fortified hill towns in the Middle Ages were more secure than farm houses and manors in the outlying countryside.   Yes, when they had the taxpayers that could afford it, like in zona norte in Martinez, Acasuso, and Nunez.  ;-) Of course, the isolated places are much more exposed. Like in the middle ages, like the farmers in South Africa, like the conquistador settlers. 4) Also, did any local police departments authorize their local citizens to use violence -- as part time police deputies or as militia?   No, didn't happen and dont expect cops to ever say so. In 99% it will be terrible press, adimiting they cant keep things safe themselves, or even worse, authorize more random violence an vigilante activity. 5) Were neighborhoods close to police headquarters and major infrastructure facilities (Hospitals, water treatment plants, electrical generation/transmission facilities,etc ) safer and more secure?   SUprisingly, in some cases, no. Of course it does help to be close to a PD. But we've seen stores here in La Plata, 20 meters away from a police station, get robbed over 30 times. Yes, pretty embarassing. But overal yes, it does help to have a police station or security firm across the street. 6) Was the differences fairly obvious or would one need to examine crime statistics to be sure of conclusions?

January 2, 2010 1:21 PM

No, the difference is pretty clear. Poor=more crime in most cases, even in spite of the efforts that help a little bit. Money= safer.

FerFAL