Violence in Honduras

The eye of the storm

Timid steps to tame the world’s most violent country

See article

Readers' comments




While I agreed with the overview provided in this article, I don't think it's appropriate to use the phrase 'most violent country' when referring to Honduras. To me, that implies that a) looking at the murder rate alone is enough to determine overall levels of 'violence' (definitely false), b) that Hondurans not involved in gangs or the drug trade are at high risk of violent crimes (may be true, but it's worth noting that the vast majority of murders are limited to gang members and their associates), and c) that their is something inherently violent about Hondurans themselves (this one is a stretch on my part, I admit).

Clearly noting that Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world is both sufficient and accurate. Calling it the 'world's most violent country' is sensationalism.


The one complaint I have is that the article mentions a supposed history of military rule, despite the fact that there have been uninterrupted elections since 1982(even the coup in 2009 was about guaranteeing an election, not about doing away with civilian democratic rule).


Any society is merely a reflection of its people. Tha Spaniards dumped their criminals and other derelicts of Spanish society onto their colonies in the Americas, thus resulting in the anarchy, crime, poverty, violence and chaos of Spanish speaking Latin America. But Hispanicks are a very proud people. They desperately want to believe their countries were held back from greatness by "USA/Anglo interference" in their countries. They desperately want to beleive their countries each would have blasted off for Mars by Nov 1,1492, if not for "USA/Anglo interference in their space programs".


Reading this article, the impression exerted from it seems to be that the presumable War on Drugs is failing, and that no matter how much pressure put upon, drug lord will prevail in finding ways to get their merchandise to their customers. I think that now is a time to try and enlarge options relating to the drug trade, and I think one very plausible solution for this would be the overall legalization of drugs. Though this may seem to have many negative effects towards the population, if analyzed, it actually seems to have more pros than cons.
In my opinion, it all comes down to how each choice will affect the population as a whole. Though it is true that drugs have always been considered as a taboo in a modernized society, I believe that for the good of individuals who risk their lives for this cause, both as enforcers or as crossfire victims, and those who pay the tax money to support these controls, that the restrictions and suppression of the drug culture within society. I am not saying that it should be available to everyone, or even know which drugs should be legalized, but as a whole, I believe that legalizing drugs can bring benefits to a society.
When exposed to the concept of drugs by the common population, it would seem that all that is apprehended is the horrid effects that they cause to individuals; overdose, HIV/AIDS from shared needles, complete lack of self control, and death, all of which lead to the perception of drugs by the populace. Yet, I think that this fear of drugs created within society should incite the rejection from society on drugs, but focus on the individual. For example, many people nowadays believe that if drugs are legalized, then more people are going to want to do it, and therefore, resulting in a society influenced by the effects of drugs. But, if media were able to correctly show the negative side of drugs, it would then allow the individual to use his or her moral compass to weigh out the consequences of using narcotics. This can be compared to alcohol or even tobacco, which even though are more socially acceptable because of the fact that they have been part of the cultural norm in society for centuries, still cause multiple hundred of thousands of deaths in the American society alone (1) , and yet, media has been trying to show the horrible effect of these “acceptable products”.
Looking at this from a national perspective, the legalization of drugs can still bring multiple benefits to society as a whole, both economically and socially. In 2007, “The estimated economic cost of illicit drugs use to society was more than 193 billion dollars”(2) stated by a document of the U.S. Department of Justice. In a time of economic struggle throughout the globe, I think that this sort of money could help the United States get back on its feet, if this sort of money was allocated somewhere where it could be needed more. The fact that these drugs would be legalized would also cripple incentive for drug lords to keep selling, as it would enter an open market and therefore, cause prices to drop, which eventually decreases the incentive to sell the product. Along side this remedy, if drugs would be legalized and taxed, (upon which sin taxes could be even be put on to increase revenue and discourage people to buy such products) then there would no longer be a need for drug-enforcement agencies, and therefore fewer lives would be at risk of death in result of dangerous drug cartels.
Overall, it seems that the debate regarding the legalization of drugs surrounds primarily the fact that it would be considered immoral to allow such a product inside a country. Therefore, not focusing enough on the benefits it could bring, creating an ethical debate that though seems rational, but with more consequences than benefits. This is why I am lead to think that overall, the legalization of drugs will bring benefits to a country, even though it may seem morally incorrect.



Funny how wherever there is illegal drug trade there is violence. Do you thing there is a correlation?


It is fair to say that there has not been enough support to Central America in the drugs and arms issue...the USA should rethink its strategy

Falconite in reply to Tommy940

do you mean honduras is possibly less violent than other countries for general societal violence excluding homicide, or war zones that are in no position to record homicides?

in terms of peacetime countries i think the murder rate is far and away the best barometer. 'injuries' that aren't fatal may be recorded or not recorded properly depending on the country (i realise relying on the homicide rate isn't 100% perfect but, more or less, you probably won't go far wrong).

for me the most violent countries currently are the two congo's, syria, afghanistan, sudan, somalia etc.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

