J:D research paper

SOC 344: RESEARCH PAPER 1
Juvenile Delinquency in Mexico
The Juvenile Delinquency in Mexico compared to the
United States.
Shayla McCaffery
Winter 2015

SOC:344
Research paper: Juvenile
Delinquency in Mexico
The Juvenile Delinquency in Mexico compared to the
United States.
Abstract:
Juvenile Delinquency in the Mexico and Comparing and contrasting the two judicial
systems. After significant changes in the Mexican Juvenile system there has been many
benefits to the adolescents that do commit crimes and are entered into the system. The
Mexican government began changes in 2005 and later required each Mexican Federation
to establish a Juvenile system that was separate from the Adult Justice system. In both the
United States and in Mexico there is a newer focus on restorative justice for the
adolescents. Offering counseling, education, and additional resources. Many Countries
are using more restorative methods for juvenile defenders due the amount of
traumatization that occurs when a child is institutionalized. In addition, to taking into
consideration of the socialization the adolescent has experience, if the adolescent was
abused, and the conditions in which the adolescent has been raised in. Many of these
cases are solved before a trail in both Mexico and the United States. The effects have
these changes have been successful for both countries.

In the United States the Juvenile Delinquency system is based on rehabilitation of the
youth. According to Siegel and Welsch’s Juvenile Delinquency: The core, “Today the legal
status of juvenile delinquent refers to a minor child who has been found to have violated the
penal code” (2014). In the United States, Juvenile delinquency is considered between criminal
and civil law and delinquent behavior is treated less critical than adult misbehavior. Children
may become apart of the state’s authority for committing actions that would be illegal when they
are an adult. These behaviors are known as status offenses. Although, during a hearing of these
offenses may be seen differently than the treatment they will receive. Often times the juvenile
will be diverted to an outside program if they are not a danger to themselves or the community.
Serious offenses can be transferred to adult court. (Siegle, Welsch, 2004). Recently, other
countries have joined the United States in such restoration justice models. Mexico has adopted a
juvenile delinquency system similar to the United States, there are some differences, but they
have very similar principles and goals. Restorative methods in Mexico include, a “wide variety
of measures, including: Counseling, Educational and vocational training programs, other
rehabilitating measures, Warning, Admonition, Prohibition to go to certain places, Prohibition to
drive motor vehicles, Placement in custodial homes, and Confinement in educational
institutions” (Children's Rights: Mexico).
A human rights based methods was developed by countries including the United
Kingdom and the United States. According to Punishment V. Restoration: A Comparative
Analysis of Juvenile Delinquency Law in the United States and Mexico, “Mexico recently
amended its constitution to require the creation of juvenile justice systems modeled after the
principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Mexico’s juvenile
justice codes follow an approach rooted in human rights, victims’ rights, and adolescent

development research. Within Mexico, the State of Oaxaca has developed a code that
incorporates these human rights principles and sets forth procedures for using restorative justice
conferences as an alternative to the adversarial court system. While California’s juvenile
delinquency laws represent the punitive model popular in the United States, Oaxaca’s approach
exemplifies the restorative model contemplated in Mexico’s national constitutional reforms. The
distinct approaches of California and Oaxaca highlight some of the major ways in which U.S.
juvenile delinquency law fails to comport with international human rights standards and research
about adolescent development” (Caldwell, 2011). As both Nations have developed their Juvenile
system that have the human rights of the adolescent considered, it is proving in other countries
other than the Mexico are achieving great success using such restorative methods. According to
Juvenile Delinquency: The Core, future of status offense concept is still uncertain. Some believe
that juveniles who commit serious offenses should be trailed as an adult. On the other side, there
have been a great movement for restorative justice with community based treatment programs,
not official agencies. (Siegel, Welsch. 2011). Mexico’s Juvenile system deals with adolescent
offenders that commit lesser crimes in manners that avoid institutionalization, for some this is
not as beneficial due to poverty, or mental illnesses.
There have been many changes to the Mexican juvenile system. Since 2005, there have
been many changes made to the Mexican constitution. The reforms are giving individuals more
rights and allowing offenders more right, similar to rights given to all people in the United
States. For instance, separating the juvenile system from the adult system, and giving offenders
the right to an oral trial (Caldwell, 2011). According to Juvenile Justice in Mexico, juveniles are
considered children from “twelve to eighteen that have committed a crime punished under
criminal law” (Arnenta, Martinez. 2014). In addition, in 2008, along with the right to an oral

trial, “the 2008 reforms grant the accused fundamental due process rights, including the
presumption of innocence, the right to competent counsel, the right to testify or to remain silent,
and the right to a speedy trial. In addition, the reforms limited pre- trial detention, required the
physical presence of a judge during hearings, and made confessions obtained by torture
inadmissible in court. These due process reforms, including the right to oral trials, extend to
juveniles in delinquency proceedings and have informed the design of individual Mexican state’s
juvenile justice laws and procedures. Mexico’s 2005 juvenile justice reforms were greatly
influenced by the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and accordingly
prioritize due process rights and procedures that take into account adolescents’ diminished
capacity due to their age” (Caldwell, 2011). The the new system is supposed to be fully
implemented by 2016 (Caldwell, 2011).
Since the reforms have began, juvenile offenders in Mexico have earned due process
rights, like having an actual trial in the courts, there is also now consideration into the offenders
history and background. For instance, a child who was neglected or abused needs to receive a
different trial, also if the child was forced to do the crime is also now taken into consideration.
Those who commit more serious crimes before 2005, where tried as an adult. As previously
stated, due to the studies of the biological state of juveniles it is better suited to be treated
differently than adults. In 2006, each Mexican federation implemented “Law of Justice for
adolescents” requiring that the “institutionalization of minors was to be considered an extreme
measure applicable only to felonies and to juveniles older than fourteen”…”Two objectives were
paramount: juveniles should be separated from adults so as not to be negatively influenced by
them, and should be treated differently from adults” (Arnenta, Martinez. 2014). These changes
have been long overdue, but are very important for the youth of Mexico.

Well before the reforms that began in 2005, “The first tribunal in Mexico was established
in the central state of San Luis Potosi in 1926. However, the subsequent legal developments in
the area of juvenile justice occurred mainly in Mexico City. Those first courts adopted the model
of the Chicago Court and of the Paternal Judge of New York “After the first national conference
for juvenile offenders in 1973, a new theory for treatment emerged and the law was changed
once more. In 1974, the law creating the Juvenile Tutelary Council in Federal Territories and the
Federal District was passed. This law included new concepts, objectives and procedures,
returned to preventive, protectionist, corrective and non-punitive treatment… Accordingly, in
this law there is no criminal responsibility, because due their age, juveniles (under 18 years old)
do not have the capacity to understand criminal law” (Arnenta, Martinez. 2014). These laws did
not give any due process rights, making the juvenile’s responsibility a matter of the state. The
state is than involved in their education, orientation, and treatment. The parents were seen as
failing to educate their children.
The institutionalization these juveniles received was considered treatment at the time.
The treatment was different than an adults and considered to be an education opportunity, since
they believed the education did not occur properly with their parents. It was also considered that
the state was protecting them. According to Arnenta and Martinez, “United Nations beholden to
the states to recognize that imprisonment is punishment and it was necessary to provide
procedural rights to juvenile delinquents” For this purpose, a new law was enacted in 1991: The
“Juvenile Treatment Law for the Federal District”. It regulates state level crimes for the Federal
District and federal crimes for the rest of the republic. The objective of this law is established in
its first statute: “...[It] Rules the function of the State in protecting juvenile rights as well as in
the social adjustment of those whose conduct is typified within the federal laws and in those of

the federal District law”. ‘This is an administrative court, since all the officials that constitute the
juvenile council are administrative authorities (non-judiciary). The structure of the tribunal
changed significantly from the previous. A president, a single counselor (in Mexico this is called
Unitarian), a superior court (appeal body), an interdisciplinary committee (which issues the
diagnosis), and a juvenile defense unit formed this tribunal. Unlike the former tribunals, a
Unitarian counselor makes the resolutions during the process” (2014). There have been many
changes to the juvenile system in Mexico, including the shape and laws of the juvenile court
system.
Since reforms the Mexican Juvenile system has granted their people the right to not be
sentence or prosecuted until evidence from both sides have been presents. Before the reform,
these convicted offenders did not have a right to an oral trail, trailed as an adult, and the over all
goal was education, through institutionalization. Today, they take into account what is in the best
interest for the child. According to Juvenile Justice in Mexico, when considering the best interest
of the child there are five things considered. First, the opinion of the child, the balance between
the right and obligations of the child, the balance between the requirements of the common good,
the rights and guarantee or a child. In addition, the balance between the rights of the person and
the rights of the child. Lastly, the specific condition of the child as a developing person (Arnenta,
Martinez. 2014). These factors allow more of a restorative justice approach and more ability to
help rehabilitate young offenders. The United States has made many efforts to improving the
restorative justice and it is proving to benefit the juvenile offenders. According to the efforts
done at Pima County Juvenile justice system, there efforts to increase resources and lower the
number of institutionalized, the less youth are not traumatized and the less repeat offenders. The
efforts of restoration are to improve the lives of the juveniles and try and give them the

resources, while considering the biological and mental state of the teens (Pima County Juvenile
Court, 2013,
Watch now: AZ Illustrated, 2014).
When assessing a juvenile offender, it is important to consider where the child was
raised and what there socialization experiences have been. For instance, those who are abused or
neglected. Nothing makes their actions right, but there may be better ways of assisting the
rehabilitation of the children. Another example, those who are raised in gang affiliation or in
areas of such. Juveniles in both the United States and Mexico today, are having increasingly high
run ins with the juvenile justice system. According to Nathan Jones’ journal Understanding and
Addressing Youth “Gangs” in Mexico , “ In a recent report, the Organization of American States
“eclectically” defines youth gangs as: ...a spontaneous effort by children and young people to
create, where it does not exist, an urban space in society that is adapted to their needs, where
they can exercise the rights that their families, government, and communities do not offer them.
Arising out of extreme poverty, exclusion, and a lack of opportunities, gangs try to gain their
rights and meet their needs by organizing themselves without supervision and developing their
own rules, and by securing for themselves a territory and a set of symbols that gives meaning to
their membership in the group. This endeavor to exercise their citizenship is, in many cases, a
violation of their own and others’ rights, and frequently generates violence and crime in a vicious
circle that perpetuates their original exclusion. This is why they cannot reverse the situation that
they were born into. Since it is primarily a male phenomenon, female gang members suffer more
intensively from gender discrimination and the inequalities inherent in the dominant culture”
(Jones, 2013). Culture has forever impacting influences on the adolescents. Shaping the views,

behaviors, beliefs, and habits of the children. According to Jones the United States definition is
looked at in a human-rights perspective, verse strictly a protection perspective.
Jones also states, it is important to consider the difference between adolescent gangs and
organized crime, yes they can over lap, but the need for social acceptance and a adolescents
experience should be considered. When comparing the United States juveniles to Mexico’s
similar attributes, “Among those characteristics identified by the literature and interviews are:
aged 12-24, unemployment, lack of education, a family member who is a gang member,
“aggressive or violent... experience multiple caretaker transitions... associate with other gang-
involved youth,” come from single parent homes, suffer abuse in homes, drug consumption,
traumas and living in poor urban environs with a lack of public services and utilities especially
when a large proportion of the population is in poverty. For example, in some cases, Mexican
citizens in rural areas do not have birth certificates due to the cost of traveling to attain one or
other barriers created by weak state capacity and poverty; making it impossible for some to enter
the formal economy” (Jones, 2013). It is important for any juvenile system to consider these
adolescents different than those involved in organized crime, most adolescents often commit Part
II offenses and can rehabilitate the juvenile the best possible way from the juvenile and the
community. (Siegel, Welsch. 2011).
According to Punishment V. Restoration: A Comparative Analysis of Juvenile
Delinquency Law in the United States. and Mexico, “Mexico’s criminal justice reforms aim to
resolve the majority of the country’s criminal cases through alternative dispute resolution
methods. Restorative justice conferences are one form of alternative dispute resolution that has
been successful in responding to juvenile crime in other countries. New Zealand’s juvenile
justice system, for example, resolves ninety-five percent of its juvenile delinquency cases

through family group conferences, which typically bring together an offender, the victim, family
members of both parties, justice system professionals (such as police officers, social workers,
and probation officers), and other interested community members. These conferences aim to
respond to the needs of both victims and offenders in order to promote healing and prevent future
criminality” (Caldwell, 2011). Courts in California are having great success with similar
methods. More will follow, based on “International human rights standards and social science
research regarding effective juvenile delinquency interventions favor the more restorative
approach taken by Oaxaca’s legal code (California’s system). There are some indications that the
direction of American juvenile justice policy may be shifting. Recent U.S. Supreme Court cases
such as Roper and Graham, have limited the types of punishments that can be imposed on
juvenile offenders.205 Oaxaca’s code provides a model of a juvenile delinquency code that
incorporates developmental research regarding adolescents and international human rights
principles that the United States, and individual states, should consider in order to craft a more
just and developmentally appropriate framework for responding to youth crime” (Caldwell,
2011). According to the research that is being conducted on these matters it is proving that a
restorative method is becoming more effective.
Based on the definitions listed in Jone’s article, both the United States and Mexico have
similar profiles of children that commit crime. Most coming from poverty, inadequate education,
poor housing, and other social problems. The Mexican government has made significant changes
to the Juvenile justice system and is adapting and developing a system similar to the United
States; by giving offenders rights, considering the biological condition of the adolescent,
considering their socialization, while also granting access to resources, and rehabilitation. The
restorative justice method is working effectively in Mexico and in the United States, but there is

room for improvement to continue lowering the number of adolescents that before repeat
offenders. The restorative justice method, does not reach all juveniles that at at high risk for
being repeat or serial offenders.
References:
Armenta, M., & Martínez, L. (2014). Juvenile Justice in Mexico. Laws, 3, 580–597-580–597.
Caldwell, B. (2011). PUNISHMENT V. RESTORATION: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY LAW IN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO, 20:105, 105-
112.
Children's Rights: Mexico. (n.d.). Retrieved January 30, 2015, from
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/child-rights/mexico.php#Juvenile Justice
Jones, N. (2013, August 1). Understanding and Addressing Youth in "Gangs" in Mexico.
Retrieved January 30, 2015, from
https://justiceinmexico.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/jones_youth_gangs.pdf

Program prepares kids for the working world. (2014, January 1). Retrieved January 30, 2015,
from http://www.pcjcc.pima.gov/Documents/community bulletin files/August2013.pdf
Siegel, L., & Welsh, B. (2011). Juvenile delinquency: The core (4th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Watch now: AZ Illustrated | May 28, 2014 | PBS Video. (2014, May 28). Retrieved January 30,
2015, from http://video.pbs.org/video/2365256105/

J:D research paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to J:D research paper

Similar to J:D research paper (16)

More from Shayla McCaffery

More from Shayla McCaffery (6)

J:D research paper