sentences

April 2 (UPI) — The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights urged authorities in El Salvador to reconsider recent constitutional and legal changes that allow life sentences for minors as young as 12.

The agency warned Wednesday that the measure contradicts international human rights standards and obligations.

El Salvador’s Legislative Assembly approved the reform March 26, amending the country’s juvenile criminal law to permit life imprisonment for minors linked to criminal groups.

The change is part of broader constitutional changes promoted by President Nayib Bukele, and it expands the use of life sentences, previously authorized for adults, to include adolescents.

The reform accompanying a constitutional amendment promoted by the government of Nayib Bukele alters the juvenile justice system by removing previous maximum detention limits for crimes such as terrorism and organized crime, digital outlet Lexis reported.

The move is part of a broader tightening of criminal policy after ratification of a constitutional reform that authorizes life sentences for adults and now extends them to adolescents, with the stated goal of combating criminal networks and gangs.

Until now, Salvadoran law established that in severe cases, minors under 12 could face up to 10 years in detention, while those older than 16 could receive sentences of up to 15 years.

The new legal framework establishes life imprisonment as the only possible sentence for crimes such as homicide, femicide, rape and gang membership for those between ages 12 and 18, representing a major shift in the country’s juvenile justice model, Infobae reported.

The proposed measure was ratified with 57 votes in favor, marking a significant shift in the Central American country’s criminal policy.

In response to the U.N. statement, Bukele pointed to historical precedents. He recalled the implementation of the Juvenile Offender Law in 1994, adopted following U.N. recommendations, which he said contributed to conditions that enabled the growth of gangs in the country.

In a message on X, Bukele said past decisions, along with processes such as the deportation of Salvadorans during the administration of Bill Clinton, helped strengthen criminal structures that shaped decades of violence in El Salvador.

“So, no, thank you very much. Take your social experiments to other countries that have not suffered what we have suffered; maybe they will believe you (hopefully not). We are not going back to the past,” Bukele wrote.

The office of high commissioner said the reform conflicts with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires that children in conflict with the law be treated in a way that prioritizes rehabilitation and reintegration, and that detention be used only as a last resort and for the shortest possible time.

“Prolonged detention is deeply harmful to children, violates several of their rights and affects their development and well-being throughout life, reducing their chances of successful reintegration into society,” spokesperson Marta Hurtado said in a statement.

The agency added that improving prison conditions and ensuring full compliance with human rights standards for all detainees remain essential.

Salvadoran magistrates defended the reform, saying it is consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child because it does not impose a sentence without the possibility of release, the newspaper La Nación reported.

The government created a mechanism that allowed those sentenced to life imprisonment to seek a review of their sentence. Under certain criteria, this could allow them to regain their freedom in a controlled manner after 25 years in prison.

If a minor is convicted of more than one crime, the sentence review would take place after 35 years in prison. If the conviction involves an aggravated or extremely serious offense, the sentence may not be reviewed until 40 years have been served.

On March 27, El Salvador marked four years under a state of emergency aimed at combating gangs, which authorities blame for the majority of homicides in the country.

They’re so darn cute together, these two. Neal Allen, father of four, newspaper reporter turned corporate executive turned spiritual coach turned author of two spiritual guidebooks, stands a full head of hair taller than his dread-headed wife, who calls him her “current husband.” He calls her his “remarkable and beautiful partner” and himself “Mr. Anne Lamott.”

And no wonder. Author Anne Lamott has published 21 books, with worldwide sales in the millions. “Bird by Bird,” her 1994 writing handbook, which has sold more than 1 million copies and continues to sell approximately 40,000 copies each year, became a meme before there were memes. Thirty-two years later, the titular phrase has made appearances everywhere from “Ted Lasso” (Coach Beard: “I hate losing.” Coach Lasso: “Bird by bird, Coach.”) to a Gloria Steinem interview in Cosmopolitan (“Every writer, truth-seeker, parent, and activist I know is in love with one or more books by Anne Lamott”).

Ask a famous writer how they do what they do, and “Bird by Bird” will likely get honorable mention. Harlan Coben, whose 35 novels have sold roughly 90 million copies, calls “Bird by Bird” his “favorite writing manual.” “I use it like a coach’s halftime speech to get me fired up to write.”

In a 2007 interview, “Eat Pray Love” author Elizabeth Gilbert called herself Lamott’s “literary offspring.” Paula McLain, who wrote the 2011 blockbuster “The Paris Wife,” told me: “I return to ‘Bird by Bird’ again and again because Anne Lamott tells the truth about how hard this work is — and then somehow makes you laugh about it.”

I reached out to best-selling memoirist and novelist Dani Shapiro to ask if she had her own experience with the book. “A writer is always a beginner,” she said. “And there is no better companion than ‘Bird by Bird.’”

Lamott and Allen partnered to write “Good Writing.”

(Christie Hemm Klok / For The Times)

Lamott, 71, and Allen, 69, met in 2016 on the 50-plus dating site OurTime.com. Nine months later, they bought a woodsy Marin County home with room for Lamott’s son and grandson. Sam, when he was 1 year old, was the subject of his mom’s first bestseller, the 1993 memoir “Operating Instructions.” His son Jax was the subject, at age 1, of his grandmother’s 2012 memoir, “Some Assembly Required.”

“We were watching U.S. Open tennis one night and Neal said, ‘Can I ask you something?’” Lamott told me via email. “I barely looked away from the TV, and he asked me to marry him. I said, ‘Yes, if we can get a cat.’”

After a decade of marriage, Lamott and Allen have undertaken a professional collaboration whose outcome, like their union, is greater than the sum of its parts. “Good Writing: 36 Ways to Improve Your Sentences” is as sharply specific as “Bird by Bird” is wanderingly wonderful: as winning a companion piece as two winning companions could create. The table of contents is itself a mini-manual of writerly tips: “Use Strong Verbs.” “Sound Natural.” “Keep it Active.” “Stick with Said.” “Don’t Show Off.”

Lamott and Allen.

(Christie Hemm Klok / For The Times)

I spoke to the late-life lovebirds about their process of marital manuscript-making: the good, the not so good and the blackmailing.

Meredith Maran: How did writing “Bird by Bird” compare to co-authoring “Good Writing”?

Anne Lamott: “Bird by Bird” was literally everything I knew about writing, everything I had been teaching my students for years. It was definitely my book. “Good Writing” was definitely Neal’s book. I just foisted my attention on him and threatened to undermine the marriage if he did not let me contribute.

MM: Neal, what on earth convinced you that you could add something to one of the world’s most popular writing books —written by your wife, no less?

Neal Allen: Oh, I’m not adding anything to “Bird by Bird,” which is a complete classic. It’s everything you need to know about becoming a writer. “Good Writing” is about what comes next: a second draft. And while it’s not fair to call “Bird by Bird” a craft book — it’s much more — it’s fine to define “Good Writing” that way.

“Helping each other with our work is one of the richest aspects of our life as a married couple,” Lamott said.

(Christie Hemm Klok / For The Times)

MM: In producing this joint project, how did you two negotiate the differences between your writing styles and personalities?

AL: We didn’t need to negotiate. Neal somehow manages to be both elegant and welcoming, whereas I think I am more like the class den mother, with a plate of cupcakes, exhorting people not to give up, trying to convince them that they can only share their truth in their own voice, that their voice is plenty good, and that when they get stuck, as we all do, I know some tricks that will help them get back to work.

NA: I once asked AI to describe the difference between my writing and Annie’s. AI answered that I explain things to readers; Annie helps readers reach catharsis. I think that’s absolutely right.

MM: How did you come up with the book’s fab format, whereby each of you writes your own introduction, and then each chapter starts with Neal’s thoughts about one of the 36 rules and ends with Annie’s?

NA: Annie first asked if she could annotate what I had written. That scared the bejesus out of me. When she started writing her own essays in her own voice, I was quite relieved. One of the format’s surprising strengths is that Annie always gets the last word. I explain the rule; then she helps the reader find their way and resolve their issues with the rule. There’s a downside: I don’t get to respond when she tells the reader to ignore me.

“I’m not adding anything to ‘Bird by Bird,’” Allen said. “It’s everything you need to know about becoming a writer. ‘Good Writing’ is about what comes next: a second draft.”

(Christie Hemm Klok / For The Times)

MM: In your intro, Anne, you recall Neal telling you he was working on a writing book. “Well. Hmmmph,” you replied. “I had written a book on writing once …” How did professional jealousy, competitiveness, possessiveness, or, on the brighter side, tenderness, collaborative spirit and generosity play out as you wrote a writing book together?

AL: We have no competitiveness or jealousy when it comes to each other’s writing. We just want the other person to write the most beautiful work they can. We are each other’s first reader, and editor, and while of course I feel attacked if Neal suggests even the tiniest change to my deathless prose, I have come to understand that his suggested cuts and additions save me from myself. Helping each other with our work is one of the richest aspects of our life as a married couple.

NA: There’s no way around “Bird by Bird,” and I just have to deal with that. My worry was whether Annie really wanted to be associated with my little book. I’m envious of Annie’s brilliance, of course, but we speak the same writing language and we love it equally.

MM: What are each of you proudest of, “Good Writing”-wise?

AL: We just recorded the audio version, and I was surprised by how much practical help the book offers. Also, I love the tone, which is so conversational and sometimes, I hope, pretty funny.

NA: I had the opposite reaction to recording the audio version. I saw all the opportunities for readers to mock me. In the 18 months between writing a final draft and the book showing up in stores, we’ve both flipped from believing it reflects well on us to thinking it’s a disaster. Luckily, both of us haven’t ever thought it sucks at the same time.

MM: That is fortunate. Also, Neal, I’m not sure you answered my question.

NA: What am I proudest of? That the book exists. I carried around these rules for improving sentences for years. I think a lot of writers do a book because they notice it’s not out there, and why isn’t it? And then they shrug, ‘Well, I guess it’s up to me.’ That’s how I came into all three of my books.

AL: May I just add that I’m proud to introduce my seriously charming and breathtakingly wise husband to a wider audience.

March 20 (UPI) — A U.S. district court has sentenced former Bolivian anti-drug chief Maximiliano Dávila to 25 years in prison for conspiring to import large quantities of cocaine into the United States.

Dávila, 54, was convicted of coordinating cocaine shipments and using heavy weapons to protect drug trafficking operations while serving in senior law enforcement roles in Bolivia under former President Evo Morales.

The sentence, imposed Thursday by U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote in a Manhattan court, concludes a legal process that began with his arrest near Bolivia’s border with Argentina in 2022 and his extradition in December 2024, Bolivian newspaper La Razón reported.

Dávila served as head of Bolivia’s Special Force to Fight Drug Trafficking, the country’s main anti-narcotics agency, until November 2019. His tenure placed him among the most influential figures in Bolivia’s efforts to combat drug trafficking.

However, his career was marked by allegations of ties to criminal networks, which later led to international investigations, according to local outlet Red Uno.

Prosecutors in New York said Dávila used his position to facilitate drug trafficking operations rather than combat them, turning his office into a logistical hub for organized crime.

They said he ensured safe passage for aircraft carrying cocaine from Bolivian airstrips to intermediate destinations in Central America and the Caribbean, with the drugs ultimately bound for the United States.

According to the investigation, Dávila provided armed protection for cocaine shipments, Bolivian newspaper El Deber reported.

In 2022, the U.S. State Department offered a $5 million reward for information leading to his conviction, underscoring his alleged role in regional drug trafficking networks.

In addition to the 25-year prison sentence, Dávila will face five years of supervised release. His defense has indicated it may appeal, though legal experts say the strength of the evidence makes a reduced sentence unlikely.