As Mexico Reels from Violence, Views on Crime and Punishment Harden

New America Media, News Analysis, Louis Nevaer Posted: Dec 10, 2008

Editor’s Note: In Mexico, as drug-related violence escalates at an alarming rate, the traditionally Catholic belief in redemption that has shaped the country’s legal system is giving way to a harsher view. More and more people are now calling for a vengeful criminal justice system, writes NAM contributor Louis Nevaer.

MERIDA, Mexico –- More than twice as many people have been killed in organized crime slayings in Mexico this year than in 2007, making 2008 the bloodiest year in Mexican history since the Mexican Revolution in 1917.

Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora told reporters this week that drug cartel-related killings rose by 117 percent to 5,376 as compared to the first 11 months of 2007, when there were 2,477 such slayings.

“These criminal organizations don’t have limits,” Mr. Medina-Mora, who previously served as Mexico’s public safety director, said at a news conference. “They certainly have an enormous power of intimidation.”

More Mexicans have been killed in drug-related violence in 2008 than the United States has lost soldiers in five years of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. This alarming escalation of violence has shaken Mexico to the core.

Mexican civil society has begun to question the generosity of their country’s legal system. Mexico has no death penalty, and the maximum prison term -- seldom imposed -- is 60 years. Additionally, it has refused to extradite individuals facing “cruel and unusual” punishment.

But the wave of violence that has washed over Mexico this year is fast transforming the landscape of Mexican society as Mexicans’ views on “punishment” are hardening. This shift is not so much because of the violence itself – approximately 92 percent of the 5,400 people killed in Mexico this year were involved in the drug trade – but because innocent civilians are getting caught in the crossfire between the Mexican police and the cartels.

To understand the subtle shifts in attitude, consider how Mexico’s views of crime and punishment evolved. Based on the Napoleonic Code introduced in the 19th century – when Napoleon invaded Mexico and installed Maximilian as Emperor – Mexico, like most European countries, does not have jury trials and, although there is no presumption of innocence, only “probable” doubt has to be established.

Mexico’s legal system reflects Catholic sensibilities: the idea that no one is beyond redemption, that everyone is entitled to forgiveness, and that only God can end a person’s life. As a consequence, Mexico has reluctantly extradited people accused of crimes in other countries. Sentences of more than 25 years in prison are seldom imposed, and there is no capital punishment.

American officials have long complained of Mexico’s naïveté, arguing that under Mexican law, terrorists can walk free a quarter century after their crimes. Mexican officials, meanwhile, have argued that with time, people grow and change, and can redeem themselves.

But now that violence – gruesome slayings where mutilated or decapitated bodies are dumped in public view – is affecting ordinary society, Mexico is seeing a public backlash.

As a result, three pillars of the Mexican criminal justice system are under contention:

Extradition: Since taking office in December 2006, President Felipe Calderón has handed over almost 160 criminal suspects to U.S. authorities.

Mexico had long resisted extradition requests on the principle that crimes committed in Mexico should be tried and punished in Mexico. Mexican law, furthermore, made it almost impossible to extradite a person who faced a life sentence or the death penalty. This reluctance began to change during the administration of Vicente Fox, who sought closer ties to the United States. These efforts were bolstered in 2005 when the Mexican Supreme Court ruled that life sentences did not constitute “cruel” or “unusual” punishment, since the United States “routinely” imposed such sentences. As a consequence, Calderón has moved forcefully to extradite drug suspects indicted in the United States, even if they face life in prison without the possibility of parole; Mexico still refuses to extradite individuals facing the death penalty.

Life Sentences: Mexico’s penal code reflects the Catholic belief that no one is beyond redemption. As such, “life imprisonment” is inconsistent with the belief in rehabilitation, and as a result, life sentences in Mexico are considered cruel and unusual punishment. The maximum sentence that a court can impose is 60 years, and this is rarely done; the longest sentence Mexican judges contemplate is 25 years, which they consider long enough for a person to redeem himself or herself.

But as violence engulfs ordinary citizens, this belief is changing. The rash of kidnappings, particularly of children, has enraged the Mexican public. This, coming after the sensational kidnapping and slaying of Fernando Martí, the 14-year-old son of a sporting goods magnate, has hardened Mexicans’ views on life imprisonment.

Felipe Calderón attended the funeral of Fernando Martí, and legislators have been inundated with calls for “concurrent sentences” that would result in prison terms that extend for a person’s natural life without the possibility of parole. Reflecting these attitudes, in 2005, Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that “life imprisonment” should no longer be considered “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Death Penalty: Perhaps no other aspect of Mexico’s penal code reflects a commitment to human rights and religious sensibilities than Mexico’s refusal to impose capital punishment. The last person executed in Mexico was in 1961. Mexico is a signatory nation to the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which forbids executions. In 1981, Mexico signed a human rights treaty as part of the Organization of American States (OAS) that states that capital punishment, once banned, cannot be reintroduced. Mexico continues to refuse to extradite anyone who faces the possibility of the death penalty.

But now, as much out of anger as frustration, Mexicans are debating the merits of capital punishment. Mexican officials have agreed to hold hearings on whether the Constitution should be amended to allow for the death penalty. Humberto Moreira, governor of the Mexican northern border state of Coahuila, a region engulfed in drug-related violence, sponsored an initiative that would allow capital punishment for convicted kidnappers who kill their victims.

Opponents to the death penalty accuse Moreira of exploiting the public’s growing fear with “impossible” initiatives. “Behind this call [for the reintroduction of capital punishment] is society’s desperation over the climate of insecurity we are living in,” Alberto Herrera, director of the Mexico chapter of Amnesty International, told reporters. “But the risk is it leads to calls for revenge.” Although few believe it is possible to change the Mexican Constitution, the simple fact that the question of capital punishment has entered the public debate reflects the heightened sense of outrage – and powerlessness – that ordinary Mexicans feel.

An increasing number of them are beginning to feel that it would be criminal for society to do nothing in the face of crime.

Related Articles:

Violence in Mexico Forces Families to Emigrate

Editorial: Violence Pushes Mexico Toward Militarization

Violence, Rights Violations Soar in Tijuana

Juarez Reporter Murdered, Attacks on Journalists Intensify

Page 1 of 1


User Comments

vegasquixote on Dec 29, 2008 at 00:32:27 said:

I wonder how Mr. Sharp (a shill for Bill O'Reilly) feels about all the US weapons that are used for murder in Mexico.

Nancyf on Dec 10, 2008 at 16:29:56 said:

So, Mexico are the friends of terrorists. You get what you pay for I'm sure. Friends of terrorists are NO friends of America. One day there will be a river of blood flowing between their country and ours....just hide in the bushes and watch.

Mark Santiago on Dec 10, 2008 at 15:49:33 said:

The Vatican opposes capital punishment, and Mexican law respects that position.


Vatican paper condemns death penalty as affront to human dignity

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The death penalty "is not only a refusal of the right to life, but it also is an affront to human dignity," the Vatican said in a position paper.

The paper was prepared for the Feb. 1-3 World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Paris and was released Feb. 7 by the Vatican press office.

"The Holy See takes this occasion to welcome and affirm again its support for all initiatives aimed at defending the inherent and inviolable value of all human life from conception to natural death," it said.

Echoing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the paper recognized the obligation of governments to protect their citizens, but it also said that "today it truly is difficult to justify" using the death penalty when other means of protection, including life imprisonment for murderers, are possible.

Citing appeals made by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI for clemency for people condemned to die, the paper said the Vatican supported international campaigns to proclaim a universal moratorium on the use of capital punishment and the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.

It also noted concerns raised in many parts of the world over "recent executions," obviously referring to the hanging of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and other former officials of Iraq.

"Consciences have been awakened by the need for a greater recognition of the inalienable dignity of human beings and by the universality and integrity of human rights, beginning with the right to life," it said.

The paper said every decision to use the death penalty carries "numerous risks," including "the danger of punishing innocent persons" and the possibility of "promoting violent forms of revenge rather than a true sense of social justice."

A capital execution, it said, is "a clear offense against the inviolability of human life" and can contribute to "a culture of violence and death."

"For Christians," the Vatican said, "it also shows contempt for the Gospel teaching on forgiveness."

While an execution "temporarily may alleviate an appetite for revenge," it said, taking the life of the criminal makes it impossible to fulfill the obligation of justice, which calls for penalties that punish and may help rehabilitate an offender.


Dudley Sharp on Dec 10, 2008 at 11:28:09 said:

The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters

Some wrongly state that executions are a human rights violation. The human rights violation argument often comes from European leadership and human rights organizations.

The argument is as follows: Life is a fundamental human right. Therefore, taking it away is a fundamental violation of human rights.

Those who say that the death penalty is a human rights violation have no solid moral or philosophical foundation for making such a statement. What opponents of capital punishment really are saying is that they just don't approve of executions.

Certainly, both freedom and life are fundamental human rights. On this, there is virtually no disagreement. However, again, virtually all agree, that freedom may be taken away when there is a violation of the social contract. Freedom, a fundamental human right, may be taken away from those who violate society's laws. So to is the fundamental human right of life forfeit when the violation of the social contract is most grave.

No one disputes that taking freedom away is a different result than taking life away. However, the issue is the incorrect claim that taking away fundamental human rights -- be that freedom or life -- is a human rights violation. It is not. It depends specifically on the circumstances.

How do we know? Because those very same governments and human rights stalwarts, rightly, tell us so. Universally, both governments and human rights organizations approve and encourage taking away the fundamental human right of freedom, as a proper response to some criminal activity.

Why do governments and human rights organizations not condemn just incarceration of criminals as a fundamental human rights violation? Because they think incarceration is just fine.

Why do some of those same groups condemn execution as a human rights violation? Only because they don't like it. They have no moral or philosophical foundation for calling execution a human rights violation.

In the context of criminals violating the social contract, those criminals have voluntarily subjected themselves to the laws of the state. And they have knowingly placed themselves in a position where their fundamental human rights of freedom and life are subject to being forfeit by their actions.

Opinion is only worth the value of its foundation. Those who call execution a human rights violation have no credible foundation for that claim. What they are really saying is "We just don't like it."

copyright 2005-2008, Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS, VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.

Dudley Sharp on Dec 10, 2008 at 11:26:12 said:

You repeat a common misunderstanding.

Catholic teachings do not say \"only God can end a person\'s life.\"

The death penalty can be supported by Catholics in good standing. And redemption is not done away with when we have capital punishment.

Forgiveness does not preclude any sanction, inclusive of the death penalty.




Just Posted

NAM Coverage

Criminal Justice


Advertisements on our website do not necessarily reflect the views or mission of New America Media, our affiliates or our funders.