PRISONS
IN MEXICO:
What for?
* Translation into English has been sponsored by the Center for U.S. Mexican Studies at UCSD.
2013 México Evalúa, Centro de Análisis de Políticas Públicas.
Paper written by Leslie Solís, Néstor de Buen and Sandra Ley, based on information from the report made
for México Evalúa by Guillermo Zepeda Lecuona, with the assistance of Lizeth Gutiérrez, Cynthia Zepeda
Lecuona and Sofía Lee (this document is available on www.mexicoevalua.org).
The authors would like to thank Ana Laura Magaloni for her guidance for structuring the document;
Edna Jaime, Marco Antonio Fernández and Paola Cicero for their observations; Ana Laura Jaso for her
suggestions; as well as José Tapia and Yazmín Pérez Áviles for help designing the report.
The authors would like to thank the Center of US-Mexican Studies at UC San Diego for the translation of
the document.
1
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
Table of Contents
México Evalúa
2013.
This is a summarized version
of the original document
published in Spanish.
2
Foreword
4
Letter from the Director
6
Executive summary
10
I. INTRODUCTION
10
a. What purpose should prisons serve?
11
b. Mexico: What purpose should prisons serve, and what purpose do they actually serve?
13
c. Purpose of the report
14
II. THE IDEAL PRINCIPLES BEHIND PRISON
14
a.The theory and history behind prison
15
b.The constitutional rationale of prison in Mexico
16
c. Human rights and prison
17
III. THE USE AND ABUSE OF PRISON
IN MEXICO
17
a.Prison as punishment
20
b.The use of prison for pretrial detention
23
IV. THE CRIMES INMATES ARE IN
PRISON FOR
23
a.Distribution of crimes by type
24
b.What types of crimes are inmates in prison for?
26
c. Length of sentences
27
V. THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE OVERUSE
OF PRISON IN MEXICO
27
a. Overpopulation and overcrowding
31
b. Deterioration of services
34
c. Inability to govern prisons
36
d. Vulnerability of human rights
39
VI. THE COST OF THE PREVALENCE OF USING PRISON AS PUNISHMENT
39
a. Social cost
41
b. Monetary cost
42
VII. HOW CAN THE WAY PRISONS ARE USED BE TRANSFORMED?
42
a. Public policy recommendations on
how to transform the use of prison in Mexico
43
b. The New Adversarial Criminal Justice System
45
c. The European model versus the North
American model
46
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
47Acronyms
2
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
Foreword
By David A. Shirk *
Incarceration is generally accepted in most societies
as a reasonable and appropriate method for redressing
criminal behavior, controlling those individuals who break
the law, and discouraging further crime.
Yet, the widespread use of incarceration as a form of punishment is a very
modern phenomenon, and one that does not receive the attention or scrutiny
that it merits. Too often, prisons are viewed and utilized as the social equivalent
of a landfill: human trash dumps where unwanted elements are dispatched to
keep life safe and tidy. For many reasons, this is a dangerous outlook, and it
explains a great deal about why crime remains a persistent problem despite the
widespread modern use of incarceration as a tool to combat it.
In theory, incarceration is meant in most societies to achieve “justice” by
punishing the harms caused by crime, to protect society from further harm
from crime, and to correct and prevent future criminal behavior. In practice, it
is not clear that incarceration achieves any of these goals. While incarceration is
clearly a form of punishment—and, arguably, the deprivation of liberty is one of
the most severe imaginable—it is not clear that it serves as a just or appropriate
punishment to address the harms caused by crime. No amount of time in prison
makes up for a murder; yet, at the same time, the value of a stolen object
cannot be measured against a month or a year of a person’s life, either. In short,
it is almost impossible to say that the punishment of incarceration fits the crime
it is meant to address.
The role that prisons play in protecting society from further harm is also
questionable, insofar as most inmates that enter into the prison system are
bound to return to society at some point upon completing their sentence. This,
of course, is the central question regarding incarceration: in practice, does
prison serve as an effective tool for rehabilitation or at least deterrence of
further crime. While there are some exceptional institutions and practices for
making incarceration work, the empirical evidence does not weigh very heavily
in favor of using prisons to fulfill any of the three functions described above. In
many prisons around the world, the internal living environment and practices
within prisons—which often serve as “institutions of higher learning” where
criminal behaviors and networks are honed—often encourage further criminal
behavior either within the prison or upon release. The monotony and despair
that accompanies incarceration leads to insubordination, drug abuse, fighting,
and other maladaptive behaviors. The often dehumanizing treatment of inmates
within the prisons reinforces anti-social attitudes and behaviors, teaching them
that there is no reason to abide by a social contract, since life is truly nasty,
brutish, and short.
* Visiting Professor at the Center
for U.S.-Mexican Studies,
UC San Diego
On all of these points, Mexico is not alone in the problems it has within its prison
system. Yet, in recent years, Mexico’s prisons have been facing serious and
mounting problems.
3
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
The country’s incarcerated population doubled in the
1990s and grew even more dramatically over the last
decade, amid rising arrests targeting rampant forms of
common and organized crime. Counter-drug efforts in
Mexico have become especially intense since the early
2000s, with a dramatic increase in the number of drug
related arrests under the administration of Mexican
President Felipe Calderón (2006-12). During Calderón’s
term, drug arrests soared to over 30,000 annually, twice
the annual average of roughly 14,000 arrests during
previous administration of Vicente Fox (2000-2006). In
this sense, Mexico has experienced a similar trend to
that observed in the United States during the 1980s and
1990s, when tougher incarceration penalties introduced
for drug related offenses brought a dramatic increase in
the incarcerated population.
Mexico has historically described to the idea of prisons
as centers for social rehabilitation, hence the common
use of the term Center for Social Re-adaptation (Centro
de Readaptación Social, CERESO). However, in practice
there is little foundation for successful social rehabilitation
in Mexican prisons. The growing number of prisoners in
Mexico has exacerbated long-standing problems of prison
overcrowding that are common throughout the region.
Moreover, prisons are not well managed to control for
the types of populations that are housed under the same
roof. Article 18 of the Mexican constitution states there
should be separate pretrial detention facilities for those
who have not yet been sentenced for a crime versus with
those who are sentenced criminals.However, inmates
awaiting their sentence and those already sentenced are
often mixed together. The mixing of inmates can have
serious implications as inmates with various risk levels
and criminal affiliations are combined.
Under these circumstances, Mexico’s prisons have
also faced significant challenges regarding corruption,
breaches by organized crime, and internal security.
Coupled with these issues are the low levels of overall
law enforcement professionalization and a chronic lack
of resources that prevail in the criminal justice-sector
in Mexico. Prison guards are often both too abusive
toward those prisoners that they can control or too
easily swayed by the corrupting influence of prisoners
who can control them. Though there have been reforms,
professionalization efforts, and investment in new and
better facilities, major problems remain within Mexico’s
prisons that present serious public security concerns.
While many of the problems that Mexico’s roughly
420 prisons face are shared at all levels and across all
jurisdictions, this study shows that there is significant
variation in Mexico’s 31 states. There are ten facilities
at the federal level and another ten in the Federal
District, but Mexico’s states have direct jurisdiction over
three quarters of the country’s prisons, and indirect
supervision of most of the remaining prisons operated
at the local level. Thus, Mexico is not merely in need of
prison reform, but broad based effort to evaluate the
varied problems that occur within the prison system in
different states and localities.
Despite a dire need for information and careful analysis
on this topic, there have been few serious studies to
examine these problems in detail. Careful monitoring
and greater external scrutiny are needed to ensure
that prison practices in Mexico can be improved. In
this sense, México Evalúa and the authors of this study
have made an extremely important contribution by
compiling and analyzing the available data on Mexico’s
prisons. This report constitutes a landmark study that
will play an important role in current discussions about
prisons and public security in Mexico, and in establishing
a benchmark for future policy evaluation. Work of this
nature cannot stop here, however. Despite pioneering
work that has been done by the Center for Research
and Teaching of Economics (CIDE) to survey prisoners,
we still know remarkably little about how effective
Mexico’s prisons are or what happens after prison.
We also have little available information and analysis
to evaluate how alternatives to prison—particularly,
through Mexico’s ongoing criminal justice reforms that
emphasize mediation and other alternative sentencing
mechanisms—can help to avoid many of the problems
that are cited in this report.
4
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
Letter from the Director
The Mexican penitentiary system is in crisis and yet
the issue is not being addressed, much less solved.
The last administration concentrated on expanding
the capacity of the federal prison system. More cells
were built for more inmates, without thinking about an
essential question: Prison, what for? And for whom?
This report hopes to provoke discussion of these questions. The time is ripe.
There is a new administration and it must define its response to the issue. It
has two options. One is to continue with the crime-fighting and penitentiary
policies of recent years; the second is to stop and think about how we are
using prison, and what the consequences of that policy are.
This study offers abundant and well-organized evidence about some of
the effects of Mexico’s intensive use of prisons. If we look at these data
objectively, we will realize that as a society and as a nation, we have been
shooting ourselves in the foot.
We use prison intensively and irrationally. In our penal codes, 95 percent
of crimes call for prison terms. In reality, alternative punishments to
prison do not exist because neither the mechanisms nor the infrastructure
to make them work exist. With public opinion inflamed by crime, we insist
on prison as a punishment that serves as a public example, no matter the
offense. Nevertheless, in the case of minor and nonviolent crimes, other
types of penalties could be more effective and less onerous in social and
economic terms.
Mexican prisons in their present state are places that tend to produce more
criminality. This is not only because of the overcrowding present in many of
them, but also because inmates of varying degrees of dangerousness are
placed together. Mexican prisons at the present time do not reintegrate or
rehabilitate; rather, they ruin lives. A stay in prison, however brief, marks
a person for life. While more than 60 percent of the prison population has
short stays of less than three years for non-serious, nonviolent crimes, their
offenses have generated a forceful, hard-line response from the Mexican
state. In the background of these disproportionate reactions are the penal
codes of various states that give theft the same punishment as murder. This
is in addition to the thousands of prisoners who, even though they have not
been convicted or sentenced and do not represent any risk to society, are
deprived of their freedom.
We insist on the intensive use of prison when there are penitentiary centers
where inmates must take turns to be able to sleep. What are we seeking
from prison: justice or retribution?
5
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
In spite of what has been outlined, we are not moving away from our
positions. Public opinion continues to be disposed toward longer sentences,
and imprisoning more people. Neither the evidence of what happens in our
penitentiaries nor the events of our streets is sufficient to cause a change of
opinion.
Prisons in Mexico receive what is processed through our system of justice.
There will be no way to transform them if a parallel change does not take place
in our penal codes and in the criminal justice system. This study examines
this intersection and the positive signals concerning prison numbers that are
resulting from the operation of Mexico’s new criminal justice system.
Prisons can be transformed if there is leadership and a plan to do so.
This subject requires determination, conviction, and, of course, a good
understanding of the problem. Hopefully, this administration will fully explore
the subject and meet its promise of changing the paradigm in matters of
public safety and justice.
It only remains for me to recognize the effort of the researchers and friends of
Mexico Evalúa who worked on or contributed to this project: Leslie Solís and
Néstor de Buen of this organization, and Sandra Ley, who got involved for the
pleasure of helping out with subjects that inspire her. To Marco Fernandez,
whose supervision of this project was part of his inauguration as director
of research of this institution. Of course, to my friend Guillermo Zepeda;
information, arguments, figures, and tables were used from a report he did
for México Evalúa. And to Ana Magaloni, who provoked us with a question
that drills deep: Prison, what for?
Edna Jaime Treviño
Director General
6
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
Executive Summary
The purpose of the penitentiary system in Mexico, as
stated in Article 18 of the Constitution, is to reintegrate
convicts into society. This should be accomplished
through respect for human rights, work, self-education,
health, and sport. Yet, far from being a form of
punishment reserved for those who committed serious
crimes, prison has become, in large part, a place to
house people accused of petty crimes or those awaiting
trial or sentencing. Instead of being places working to
reintegrate lawbreakers into society, Mexican prisons
are overcrowded settings where human rights are not
respected and violence prevails.
This report examines the reality of Mexican prisons
and strongly questions their purpose and utility in
their current state of operation. The significant rise
in violence and decline in public safety in the last few
years have created a demand for justice and social
peace. As a result of rising criminality and celebrated
cases of crime bosses and politicians that suggest
impunity, the temptation to use prison as an instrument
of vengeance has grown; this shift in public opinion
is understandable, to an extent. Nevertheless, the
desire for retributive justice is causing a shift away
from the ideals of the prison system and from the
collective priorities of society. The precarious state of
Mexican prisons forces us to ask whether their work to
facilitate reintegration into society has been effective
and whether it makes sense for incarceration to be the
primary form of punishment for practically every crime
committed in Mexico.
This report underlines the following conclusions:
1. In theory, the prison system can meet
various objectives
According to Jeremy Bentham (1780), prisons have
three basic functions: incapacitation, rehabilitation,
and deterrence. Incapacitation keeps felons locked
up, preventing them from committing more offenses.
Rehabilitation focuses on eliminating the desire to
commit crimes. Finally, deterrence seeks to use the
threat of punishment to keep the population at large,
including ex-convicts, from breaking the law.
In Mexico, the constitutional rationale for the prison
system has changed throughout history. From 1917 to
1965 its purpose was the “regeneration” of the offender.
From 1965 to 2008 the goal was the “social readjustment
of the criminal.” As a result of the June 2008 reform to
Article 18 of the Constitution, the purpose has become
the “convict’s reintegration into society,” so that those
who leave prison lose their desire to commit crimes again.
Moreover, a 2011 constitutional reform incorporated
respect for human rights as a basis of the penal system.
2. In Mexico, the penitentiary system has been
abused; other types of punishments are
rarely seen
In 2011, 96.4 percent of convictions resulted in prison
sentences. Only 3.6 percent of sentences called for
alternative forms of punishment such as fines or
restitution. Furthermore, no clear distinction is made
between minor and serious offenses; those who commit
serious crimes and those who commit petty ones are
given similar sentences. In some states, this situation
is taken to the point of absurdity; their penal codes call
for those convicted to receive the same sentence, no
matter whether the crime was a nonviolent theft or a
first-degree murder with no extenuating circumstances.
In addition, 58.8 percent of inmates serve prison
sentences of less than three years. This means that
the majority of people in prison have had their freedom
taken away for having committed crimes that were
neither violent nor serious. This figure also suggests that
the state’s ability to prosecute crimes is low and limited
to the weakest links of the criminal chain. In four states,
more than 75 percent of the sentences are for less than
three years: Aguascalientes (83.2), Baja California
(79.9), Guanajuato (79.3), and Michoacán (78.1). In
sum, imprisonment in Mexico is overused as a means
of punishment while less costly and more appropriate
alternatives are disregarded.
3. A high percentage of pretrial detainees exist
As of January 2013, 41.3 percent of all detainees in Mexico
had not been tried or sentenced. This means that thousands
7
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
of people have been deprived of their right to attend their judicial proceedings
as free individuals. The consequences of this are many. On one hand, it causes
a major prison overpopulation problem. On the other hand, pretrial detainees
are forced to live alongside convicts and other suspects, generating important
criminogenic effects such as recidivism and an inefficient reintegration process.
There are significant differences at the state level: More than 60 percent of those
confined in Baja California Sur, Durango, Oaxaca, and Quintana Roo have not been
tried or sentenced. Mexico City, at under 20 percent, is at the opposite extreme.
4. Prison living conditions, far from facilitating the reintegration
of convicts into society, likely cause criminogenic effects such as
recidivism instead
This analysis also shows how there are 242,754 inmates in Mexican prisons; the
prisons, however, were designed to have a maximum population of 195,278. That
puts overcrowding at 124.3 percent of capacity. States and entities with the highest
levels of overcrowding are: Nayarit (188.6 percent of capacity), Mexico City (184.7
percent), Jalisco (176.1 percent), and the State of Mexico (170.5 percent).
Some prisons have overcrowding of more than 400 percent of capacity; the
district jail in Tepeaca, Puebla, houses 266 inmates in a space designed for 46.
Such overcrowding is contrary to the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment
of Prisoners of the United Nations. In addition to being considered cruel,
overcrowding facilitates the transmission of numerous diseases, thus making it
a possible health risk.
Similarly, according to the Incarcerated Population Surveys by the Center for
Research and Teaching of Economics (CIDE), inmates face shortages of food,
drinking water, and everyday items, and the quality of food and medical care is
bad. The inmates’ communications with family members is not good either: In
2012, 80.3 percent of inmates in federal prisons said they never get visitors.
This situation, coupled with a lack of well-trained prison staff as well as a staff
shortage, has allowed criminal groups within the prisons to create a system of
governance to essentially run them, causing inmates to see a return of violence
and intimidation to their daily lives.1
Without a doubt, these conditions make it difficult to generate effective social
reintegration programs. As a result, after serving their sentences, many return
to a life of crime.
According to official statistics, recidivism is 15.5 percent. However, this figure
likely underestimates recidivism, as not all crimes are investigated or punished.
Also, there is wide variation at the state level in regard to recidivism: While in
Mexico City 35.2 percent of those arrested are repeat offenders, in Campeche
only 6.5 percent of detainees had been prosecuted for a previous offense.
1 Skarbek, David. “Governance and
Prison Gangs.” American Political
Science Review 105.4
(Nov. 2011): 702-716.
8
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
5. Convicts’ human rights are vulnerable and constantly violated
The National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH), through its National Diagnosis
for Penitentiary Supervision (DNSP), measures the main areas related to the
human rights of those incarcerated in Mexico’s prisons. These items include the
following: physical and moral integrity of the inmates, decent living conditions,
governance inside prisons, processes of social reintegration, as well as the special
needs of certain inmates. In 2011, the national evaluation was 6.41 on a scale
from zero to ten, lower than the grade recorded in the previous three years.
This means that there is still much to be done in order to guarantee inmates’
rights. The states with the lowest scores were Nayarit (4.57), Guerrero (5.13),
Oaxaca (5.15), and Coahuila (5.21), while the states with highest scores were
Aguascalientes (8.47), Guanajuato (7.89), Tlaxcala (7.80), and Querétaro (7.79).
In order to improve this situation, in recent years, the CNDH has issued several
recommendations regarding the prison system. However, they are not binding
and, unfortunately, they have had little impact on prisoners’ living conditions.
6. Prison is costly in both social and economic terms
Even short stays in prison have important criminogenic effects. Time in prison
leaves a social stigma, making it hard for former inmates to find a job or have a
full social life. This situation, along with the exposure to violence and corruption
networks during the period of imprisonment, short as it might be, increases the
risk that those released will wind up involved in illegal or criminal activities again.
Furthermore, imprisonment not only affects the inmate but also his or her family.
According to organizations such as the Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO), “The
imprisonment of a mother or a father affects their children, usually in a negative way.”
2 In this manner, children become the invisible and forgotten victims of incarceration.
Also, as the imprisoned population continues to grow, the cost of running prisons
increases. The daily cost per inmate is estimated to be 137 pesos (approximately
U.S. $10.65). For the year 2012, the National Institute of Geography and
Statistics (INEGI) reported that states allocated 8.658 billion pesos (about U.S.
$673 million) for maintaining prisons.
2 Quaker United Nations Office.
“The impact of parental
imprisonment on children.”
Web. 2 July 2013.
<http://quno.org/geneva/pdf/
humanrights/women-in-prison/
ImpactParentalImprisonment200704-English.pdf>.
These figures should lead to a serious consideration of alternatives to imprisonment,
particularly for minor offenses. It is not worth incarcerating individuals who
commit minor offenses nor pay the price to keep them in prison if the treatment
they get there does not result in their full reintegration into society—or if their
time in prison winds up having negative social consequences for the inmate, his
or her family, and society as a whole. Therefore, authorities should consider policy
alternatives to incarceration according to the type of crime and its seriousness.
Options such as fines and community service should be explored in order to avoid
prison overcrowding and truly achieve the reintegration of the convict into society.
9
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
7. Is it possible to transform how prisons are used? Yes
Undeniably, one option to end overcrowding in Mexican prisons is to build
more jails. However, what is really needed is a true transformation of the
prison system and the way we use it. A reformed system should include the
following elements:
i. Eliminating the use of prison as a punishment for minor and
nonviolent crimes
ii. Development of alternatives, both legal and organizational, to
prison
iii. The prudent use of pretrial detention
iv. Improving social reintegration programs and techniques, and
making them part of the institutional structure
v. Strengthening the national penitentiary system’s infrastructure
vi. The professionalization of administrative, technical, and
custodial personnel
Similarly, it is important to accelerate the pace of the penal reform, set in
motion in June 2008. It is an example of a more rational use of imprisonment
in Mexico. Traffic accidents, minor conflicts, and some nonviolent property
crimes are being channeled to alternative forms of justice. This allows the
victim to be indemnified, where agreements are made to repair harm, or
conditions that must be satisfied by the accused are set. The purpose of such
a system is to only bring to trial cases involving violent crimes or those in
which the parties involved could not agree to an alternative resolution. This
system has already been shown to be effective: Most of the states that have
implemented the penal reform have significantly reduced the size of their
prison populations.
***
Understanding the current state of the national penitentiary system is crucial
as it is one of the components of the criminal justice system that require
the most attention. The way prisons are used in Mexico is a far cry from the
constitutional ideal of having the institutions work to reintegrate inmates into
society. Given the current situation of violence, it is important to understand
what our prisons do and what they ought to be doing. For some, the natural
response is that imprisonment is the only option available to achieve justice.
However, the truth is that, given their current use and conditions, prisons
fail to accomplish this task. Imprisonment should be our last resort, that is,
the punishment used in cases where it is deemed that the sentenced person
really represents a potential danger to society. In addition, prisons should
also be a place where convicts truly get the tools to reintegrate themselves
into society at the end of their sentences.
Only through a serious assessment, based on clear evidence, will it be possible
to adequately address the law-and-order problems the country faces and
promote the true realization of the ideals of justice that society expects.
10
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
I. Introduction
“The mood and temper of the public in regard to the
treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most
unfailing tests of the civilization of any country”.
-Sir Winston Churchill (1910)
“No one truly knows a nation until one has been inside
its jails”.
-Nelson Mandela (1994)
...
Prison is one of the most severe punishments that a person who lives in a
democracy can receive. It is a punishment that implies losing, at least
temporarily, the exercise of a citizen’s rights such as freedom of movement,
freedom to vote and be elected, freedom to work, and freedom of association,
among others. It also means an enormous restriction on one’s rights to
freedom of expression, assembly, and privacy. If a democracy is a system that
seeks to guarantee the freedom and equality of its citizens, prison is clearly
the exception. On the other hand, prisons represent a high cost to the public
purse. The money spent on them then cannot be spent on the public good
in areas such as education, health, and infrastructure, among others. This
requires a collective response to at least two questions: What are prisons for?
How can they be justified in a democracy?
3 Interior Ministry. National
Penitentiary System Statistics.
Web. 2 July 2013.
<http://www.ssp.gob.
mx/portalWebApp/
ShowBinary?nodeId=/BEA%20
Repository/365162//archivo>
4 Ibid.
5 2012 Criminal Justice Statistics,
INEGI.
There are 420 penitentiaries in Mexico. They contain 242,754 inmates.3 What
is the purpose of placing them there? To punish them? Of those imprisoned,
41.3 percent have not even been convicted; strictly speaking, they are still
innocent.6 To rehabilitate them or reintegrate them into society? More than
half the penitentiaries are overpopulated and their conditions are degrading.
To prevent and deter future crimes? At the national level, recidivism is 15.5
percent, and there are states where more than 20 percent of the inmates are
repeat offenders, which indicate that penitentiaries are not being successful in
their work to reintegrate ex-convicts into society. This leads us to two related
questions. What purpose should prisons serve? In reality, what purpose does our
penitentiary system actually serve? This report seeks to answer both questions.
Following is an overview and the general context these questions form a part of,
not to mention their relevance.5
a. What purpose should prisons serve?
From a theoretical point of view, prison can accomplish a variety of purposes,
including
prevention,
rehabilitation-reintegration,
incapacitation,
and
deterrence. Prevention refers to the incarceration of someone given a prison
sentence in order to protect society from possible future crimes; it is assumed
11
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
that if the individual is not locked up, there is a high probability that he or
she will commit another crime. Rehabilitation seeks to reorient and reeducate
inmates so that they do not return to a life of crime after being freed. The
principle behind rehabilitation is for the inmate and the state to collaborate in a
process designed to improve the prisoner’s mental state6; the concept evolved
to readjustment and, beginning in 2008, to reintegration, as laid out in Article
18 of the Mexican Constitution. The objective of incapacitation is to physically
remove the offender from society for the long term to prevent him or her from
committing another crime. Finally, deterrence refers to how putting people in
prison serves as an example to others and generates incentives for others not
to break the law.
b. Mexico: What purpose should prisons serve, and what purpose do
they actually serve?
In Mexico, the Constitution defines the reason for having prisons. Article
18 establishes the objective of the prison system is to “bring about
the reintegration of convicts into society and ensure that they do not
commit more crimes.” In addition, the most recent reform to this article, in
2011, incorporated respect for human rights as a basis of this system, along
with work, education, health, and sport. However, the reality is that we have
never sought to have prisons meet this constitutional objective. Our prison
policy is better explained as one of retributive justice. The adoption of longer
prison terms, of 50 or up to 70 years and even life sentences in some states,7
shows how retributive and disproportionate measures take away the possibility
of felons’ reintegration into society.
From the point of view of retributive justice, the purpose of punishment is
for criminals to get what “they deserve” as a consequence of their actions,
independent of any benefits the punishment represents for society. It is a
vindictive rationale in the main: “Whoever did it must pay the price.” This makes
the objectives of prevention, rehabilitation, and reintegration irrelevant. Under
this view of retributive justice, if a criminal made the victim suffer, then the
sentence must also inflict suffering, so that the punishment is proportionate
to the crime. From this perspective, an act of personal revenge could be a
completely legitimate punishment (although not a legal one), if it is considered
to be proportionate to the offense.
Nevertheless, in normative terms it is difficult to acknowledge the retributive
form of criminal punishment. In principle, the state is obligated to be impartial,
because it does not impose the sentence representing the victim, but rather
representing society as a whole.8 Its authority comes from the consent of the
governed and therefore it cannot take sides in a dispute between two people; it
must be neutral and simply interpret and apply the law. In addition, in the face
of other alternatives, it cannot be justified that the democratic state condemns
a citizen to a sentence that implies suffering.9
6 Zimring, Franklin E., and
Hawkins, Gordon. Incapacitation:
Penal Confinement and the
Restraint of Crime. New York and
Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1995: 6-9.
7 Gómez, Enrique. “Punishment
toughened for torture.” Reforma
24 Mar. 2012; Salazar, Claudia.
“Life imprisonment for kidnapping
backed.” Reforma 30 Nov. 2011;
Lomas, Enrique. “Life imprisonment
approved in Chihuahua.” Reforma
22 Dec. 2010.
8 Brettschneider, Corey.
“The Rights of the Guilty:
Punishment and Political
Legitimacy.” Political Theory
35.2 (Apr. 2007): 183.
9 Hanna, Nathan. “Liberalism
and the General Justifiability
of Punishment.” Philosophical
Studies: An International
Journal for Philosophy in the
Analytic Tradition 145.3 (Sept.
2009): 333-336.
Consulta Mitofsky. “Longer
sentences for serious crimes.”
Web. 3 July 2013. <http://
consulta.mx/web/images/
MexicoOpina/2007/20070225_
NA_IncrementoPenaDelitos.pdf>.
12
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
In a context of increasing violence and a decline in
public safety—where homicide, kidnapping, robbery and
extortion have been on the rise—hard-line policies become
more attractive and popular. During a law-and-order crisis
like the one Mexico is living through today, prison emerges
as the logical and more immediate solution.
A 2007 Consulta Mitofsky survey showed that eight
out of ten Mexicans considered it necessary for life
imprisonment to be a punishment for crimes such as
rape, murder, baby theft, and kidnapping.10 Moreover,
75 percent of Mexicans agreed that the death penalty
should be imposed for serious offenses as a measure
to fight the crime sweeping the country. According to
the 2010 Barometer of the Americas, 28 percent of
Mexicans thought the government lacked a firm enough
hand to solve the problems the nation was up against.11
Academic studies have also shown that crime victims,
in particular, tend to support hard-line policies. This
relationship is logical: It is perfectly natural for people
who have been victimized to seek and demand justice
and punishment. Nevertheless, as this report will show,
in a country where the penitentiary system has major
shortcomings and fundamental weaknesses, prison, in
10 Consulta Mitofsky. “Longer sentences for serious crimes.”
Web. 3 July 2013. <http://consulta.mx/web/images/
MexicoOpina/2007/20070225_NA_IncrementoPenaDelitos.pdf>.
11 The question asked was, “Do you think the government of our
country lacks a firm hand, or do you think the problems can
be solved with everyone’s involvement?” Report available at:
<http://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/IO880es.pdf>. Date
of access 3 July 2013.
12 Fundar. “Putting people in the custody of the Prosecutor’s Office
on display to the media.” Web. 2 July 2013. <http://fundar.org.
mx/op/?page_id=758>.
13 Arellano, Silvia, “Calderón opens escape-proof prison
in Sonora.” Milenio, 3 Oct. 2012. Web. 2 July 2013.
<http://www.milenio.com/cdb/doc/noticias2011/
cda5637c29b310147f5b9d3431a80a4d>.
14 Office of the President. “Various statements in talks on security
issues with political party presidents, III.” Web. 2 July 2013.
<http://calderon.presidencia.gob.mx/2010/08/diversasintervenciones-en-dialogo-por-la-seguridad-con-presidentes-delos-partidos-politicos-iii/>.
15 Office of the President. “With more and better federal prisons, we
are sowing the seeds of a safer Mexico.” Web. 2 July 2013. <http://
calderon.presidencia.gob.mx/2012/03/el-presidente-calderon-en-lasupervision-al-complejo-penitenciario-federal-no-3/>.
16 Office of the President. “Radio interview of Felipe Calderón with Pedro
Ferriz de Con, Imagen 90.5 FM, Mexico City, 2 Sept. 2008.” Web. 2
July 2013. <http://calderon.presidencia.gob.mx/2008/09/estamosdecididos-a-dejar-al-pais-mucho-mas-seguro-presidente-calderon/>
[emphasis added].
17 Office of the President. “With more and better federal prisons,
we are sowing the seeds of a safer Mexico.” Web. 2 July 2013.
<http://calderon.presidencia.gob.mx/2012/03/el-presidentecalderon-en-la-supervision-al-complejo-penitenciario-federal-no-3/>.
its present state, turns out to be the most costly solution.
Political discourse also has contributed to the use and
perception of prison as a medium for revenge or social
retribution. In the war against drug trafficking, the 20062012 administration of President Felipe Calderón publicized
the capture of suspects by presenting them to the mass
media before even initiating criminal proceedings against
the accused. These scenarios consisted of presenting people
in handcuffs next to alleged incriminating evidence such as
guns and money. The use of this narrative by the state to try
to show its effectiveness in the fight against crime infringed
on the rights of those detained. At the same time, this kind
of public show presented a false dichotomy between justice
and security in the court of public opinion.12
In addition, as part of the fight against organized crime,
prison has been a central axis of the federal government’s
security policy. In fact, at the inauguration of the federal
penitentiary center in Hermosillo, Sonora in October
2012, then-President Felipe Calderón reiterated his
support for replicating the prison model:
What needs to be done is to increase the
number of prisons. My criterion is that if the
law determines that there should be one,
one thousand, ten thousand or a hundred
thousand inmates, then the state must
provide prison space for them to comply
with the law: The amount of prison space
must be adjusted to comply with the rule
of law instead of adjusting the rule of law
to the amount of prison space available.13
In spite of recognizing that prisons in Mexico “don’t
readjust or rehabilitate”14 while examining renovations
at Federal Penitentiary Complex No. 3, Calderón talked
about prison as a way “of repaying, partially, the person
who has suffered maltreatment as a result of a crime.”15
Similarly, the federal government understood the purpose
of prisons to be that of incapacitation or preventing
criminals from causing further harm—not as a way to
reintegrate these people into society.
In an interview, Calderón reiterated his opinion that a
kidnapper “must never get out of jail.”16 For the then-chief
of the executive branch, prison was clearly an instrument
for retribution. In this way, having more and more prisons
would help “sow the seeds of a safer Mexico.”17
13
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
As mentioned previously, the context of high insecurity
and political discourse are contributing to the
proliferation of prisons and longer prison sentences.
The violence we are exposed to daily generates fear,
anger, and frustration; added to that is the perception
that all criminals are essentially bad or cruel people.
This brings people to see the most-punitive solutions not
only as a necessary method to fight crime, but also as a
just one. However, it is essential that we first evaluate
whether these “solutions” are based on a logical and just
reasoning, in addition to whether they are yielding the
expected results. That is the aim of this document. For
example, we must ask ourselves whether someone who
commits a nonviolent theft deserves a prison sentence
similar to one served by someone who committed
murder. This report will show that this is what happens
as a result of some states’ laws.
and what this means in terms of adhering to the principles
that ideally should govern the use of the prison. Fourth,
we describe current prison conditions, which show how
the ideals that the Constitution says should guide the way
prisons are used are not put into practice. Next, we show
evidence of the social and monetary cost of prison, with
the purpose of contributing to a serious analysis on the
consequences of using prison as the primary punishment.
Finally, we make some public policy recommendations —
directed mainly at legislators and those in charge of the
penitentiary system—and we provide a brief review of
prison models in other countries as a way to reflect on
the penitentiary system in Mexico; we also propose some
possible avenues for the system’s improvement.
Finally, in regard to the administration of President
Enrique Peña Nieto, the 2013-2018 National Development
Plan has just one reference to a course of action for
prisons: “To promote effective social reintegration as
part of the National Penitentiary System”; this is part
of Strategy 1.3.2 to promote institutional change and
to strengthen the capabilities of the security forces. In
various statements, President Peña Nieto has recognized
that the goals of the penitentiary system are not being
met, making it necessary to modernize and overhaul
the system to clearly base it on rehabilitation in
order to discourage the commission of new crimes.18
Nevertheless, neither a course of action nor concrete
policies have been put forth or implemented.
c. Purpose of the report
In a context permeated by violence and growing support
for longer prison terms, this report represents an effort
to understand the current state of Mexican prisons and
their potential to meet these kinds of public demands.
The country’s prison policy and its major pending issues
are analyzed. First, we examine the ideals behind
the use of prison, based on theoretical works and the
principles embodied in human rights theory and the
Mexican Constitution. Second, we analyze the overuse of
prisons in Mexico. Third, we explore the makeup of the
penitentiary population (what crimes inmates are in for)
18See: “The federal government inaugurates the first penitentiary
center of [Calderón] administration.” CNN Mexico, 14
May 2013. Web. 9 Aug. 2013. <http://mexico.cnn.com/
nacional/2013/05/14/el-gobierno-federal-inaugura-el-primercentro-penitenciario-del-sexenio>; Vargas, Rosa Elvira. “Peña
Nieto urges that penitentiary system be overhauled and that
inmates be rehabilitated.” La Jornada, 23 Feb. 2013. Web.
9 Aug. 2013. <http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2012/02/23/
politica/012n1pol>; Jiménez, Benito. “Peña Nieto plans to
modernize Mexico’s penitentiaries.” Noticias Terra, 5 Nov. 2012.
Web. 9 Aug. 2013. <http://noticias.terra.com.mx/transicionpresidencial/pena-nieto-plantea-modernizar-los-penales-mexi
canos,8ff67cc27f0da310VgnVCM5000009ccceb0aRCRD.html>;
Reséndiz, Francisco. “Penitentiary system needs modernizing:
EPN.” Red Política, 24 May 2012. Web. 9 Aug. 2013. <http://
www.redpolitica.mx/necesario-modernizar-el-sistemapenitenciario-epn>.
14
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
II. The Ideal Principles Behind Prison
a. The theory and history behind prison
Prison is one of the instruments the state has at its disposal to punish lawbreakers.
The origins of prison precede the emergence of democratic principles and human
rights. Therefore, its original intent is a far cry from the present ideals of justice
and respect for the human rights. The first jails served as a means of holding
those awaiting some other punishment—for example, temporary exile or corporal
punishments—or trial. Although it is not known exactly when it began being used
as punishment—that is, its current use—it is known that the Quakers19 were one
of the first communities to use prison as punishment and to favor it over corporal
punishment. Its prison model was taken up by various societies.20
Jeremy Bentham (1780) identified various goals for prisons. He proposed three
specific ones: Preventing those being punished from committing further crimes
(incapacitation), removing their desire to commit more crimes (rehabilitation),
and causing them to be afraid to commit more crimes (deterrence). He also
hoped that prison sentences would deter the rest of the population from
committing crimes.21 In addition, Bentham proposed that punishments should
be proportionate to the crime and be more utilitarian than not. That is, given
that punishment represents harm for the person who receives it, it is justified
only if a greater harm is prevented.22
19 Also known as the Religious
Society of Friends. It was a
dissident Christian community
founded in the middle of the
17th century in England by
George Fox.
20 Barnes, Harry Elmer. “The
Historical Origins of the Prison
System in America.” Journal of
the American Institute of Criminal
Law and Criminology. 12.1 (May
1921): 38.
21 Bentham, Jeremy. An
Introduction to the Principles of
Morals and Legislation. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1907: 396.
22 Bentham, Jeremy.
An Introduction. 397.
23 Zimring and Hawkins.
Incapacitation: 6-9.
24 Oppenheimer, Heinrich. The
Rationale Of Punishment.
London: London University
Press, 1913: 240-244.
25 Hampton, Jean. “The
Moral Education Theory of
Punishment.” Philosophy & Public
Affairs 13.3 (Summer 1984).
Later, in the 20th century, debate about prisons in the United States turned on
whether they should be used for rehabilitation or incapacitation. Rehabilitation
was the initial objective of the criminal justice system and predominated the
thinking behind U.S. penal code reforms in the 1960s.23 In being the goal of the
criminal justice system, rehabilitation had two advantages. First, if the process
was successful, it would be an effective method of reducing crime, as criminals
could become productive members of the society. In addition, in treating
punishment not as a goal in and of itself but rather as a means of helping
criminals, it turned into an enterprise consistent with humanitarian principles.24
Rehabilitation, therefore, can be seen as a form of education in which the state
erects certain barriers not only to discourage certain actions but also to make
people understand that such actions are morally unacceptable. This vision sees
people as rational beings able to recognize the morality of certain actions and
to act accordingly.25
Nevertheless, the rehabilitation idea was abandoned to a great extent in the
1970s because there was no evidence that the penitentiary system had a curative
effect. In Mexico, however, rehabilitation remained a constitutional objective
until 2008, when it was replaced by the idea of reintegration into society.
15
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
b. The constitutional rationale of prison in Mexico
In Mexico, Articles 18 to 22 of the Constitution regulate the penitentiary
system and the rights of inmates. According to the Constitution,
the main objective of prison is “to achieve the reintegration of
the convict into society and to ensure that he or she does not
break the law again” (Article 18, paragraph 2).
The inclusion of the concept of “the reintegration of the sentenced
person” is recent; it is the result of the June 2008 reform. Between
1917 and 1965 the prevailing concept was “regeneration.” Between
1965 and 2008, the purpose behind prison was the “social readjustment
of the criminal.” The change from readjustment to reintegration into
society has at least two implications. First, according to Miguel Sarre,
eliminating the word rehabilitation is equivalent to eliminating the
curative aspiration of prison; in other words, prison loses its sense
of “being a therapeutic means of social control” to instead becoming
a service that looks toward reintegrating the inmate into society by
giving him or her access to medical care, education, and cultural and
sporting activities.26 Second, the word change from “criminal” to
“convict” opens the possibility that the judges’ ruling might
have been wrong, and that all those who are sentenced are not
necessarily guilty.
Since the publication of one of the most recent reforms in the Diario
Oficial de la Federación (Official Gazette of the Federation) on June
10, 2011, respect for human rights was incorporated as a basis
of the system.27 It also puts forward other areas such as work,
training, education, health and sports as key ways of bringing about
the sentenced person’s reintegration into society. Thus, Article 18
establishes the following:
The penitentiary system will be organized on the basis of
respect for human rights, work, training, education,
health, and sports as means of achieving the
reintegration into society of the convict and to
ensure that he or she does not break the law again,
seeing the benefits the law provides him or her.
26 Sarre, Miguel. Debido proceso y ejecución
penal: reforma constitucional de 2008
(Due Process and Criminal Justice
Enforcement: The 2008 Constitutional
Reform). Mexico, 2010: 7. Web. http://
dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12770688/
Sarre_%20Reinserci%C3%B3n%20
social%20TSJDF%2025%20Aniversario%20
IEJ%20Oct%20%202010%20
versi%C3%B3n%20final.pdf
27 The June 20, 2011 reform. The penitentiary
system will be organized on the basis of
respect for human rights, work, training,
education, health, and sports as means of
achieving the reintegration into society of
the sentenced person and to ensure that
he or she does not break the law again,
seeing the benefits the law provides him
or her. Women will serve their sentences in
separate quarters from men.
<http://www.diputados.gob.
mx/LeyesBiblio/ref/dof/CPEUM_
ref_194_10jun11.pdf>.
16
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
c. Human rights and prison
Beyond the theoretical purposes that prison should
achieve, it is important that the creation and operation
of a penitentiary system be guided by the obligations
and responsibilities the state has before the society
it governs, as well as by the rights of the individuals
society is composed of, independent of their legal status.
Although some rights are lost as a result of prisoners’
loss of freedom, there are certain rights that must
be respected in good penitentiary management.28
Otherwise, the relationships in prison—between inmates
or between inmates and penitentiary staff—can easily be
transformed into situations of violence and abuse, where
any intent of achieving reintegration or rehabilitation
stays out of reach.
Diagram 1 summarizes the human rights of people deprived
of their liberties, according to international standards.
Mexico, in its standard setting, subscribes to the
penitentiary model that most democracies also subscribe
to. However, our empirical analysis of Mexico’s penitentiary
regime has found that we are very far from meeting the
Constitution’s goals.
To correctly determine how an ideal penitentiary
system should be set up, it is necessary to
determine the purpose that it should meet; such a
goal can vary from deterrence to rehabilitation to
incapacitation. In the case of Mexico, the reintegration
into society of the inmate is the main constitutional
objective of the penitentiary system. In order to reach
this goal, prisons must meet a minimum of standards
that permit maximum achievements when it comes to
reintegration and crime reduction. The following chapters
analyze the present conditions of the penitentiary system
in Mexico with the purpose of examining their ability to
fulfill these principles and the ideal reasoning behind
prisons. The evidence is not encouraging; everything
indicates that we have never set out to follow the
constitutional framework.
28 The nature of prison means that an
inmate’s freedom of movement is
restricted (Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, Article 13), as is freedom
of association (Article 20), the right of
contact with family (Article 12), and the
right to marry and found a family (Article
16), among others. See: Coyle, Andrew.
A Human Rights Approach to Prison:
Management Handbook for Prison Staff,
2nd ed. London: International Centre for
Prison Studies, 2009.
29 O’Donnell, Daniel. Derecho internacional
de los derechos humanos: normativa,
jurisprudencia y doctrina de los sistemas
universal e interamericano (International
Human Rights Law: Regulations,
Jurisprudence, and Doctrine of Universal
and Inter-American Systems). Bogotá:
Colombian Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights,
2004.
Rights of Persons Detained
and Imprisoned
Diagram 1. Human rights of people deprived
of their liberties
Fair and non
degrading treatment
Separation between
detained and imprisoned
Health and medical care
No isolation
Communication
No use of force
No overcrowding
Salubrity
Communicatioin with
family relatives
Source: Adapted from O’Donnell (2004).29
17
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
III. The Use and Abuse of Prison in Mexico
What meaning do we give prison as a form of punishment?
If crimes such as nonviolent theft are punished with
sentences similar to those for first-degree murder, what
is the real purpose of incarceration as a punishment?
Second, how are we using jail as a method of pretrial
detention? If two of every five inmates have not been
tried or sentenced30 yet remain in prison, living with
repeat offenders who have committed other crimes,
sometimes more serious ones, what happened to the
ideal of reintegrating these people into society?
Table 1. Ratio of total prisoners to convicted inmates,
2010
a. Prison as punishment
In a society hit by crime that has seen criminality and
violence indicators rise, the preferred answer of the
state has been to lengthen sentences, making prison
the primary answer to antisocial behavior. For example,
in December 2008 Puebla’s penal code was amended so
that the punishment for aggravated kidnapping went from
30 years to life imprisonment. Also, Mexico state’s penal
code was changed to impose life imprisonment for murder,
feminicide, and rape when the victim is killed.
In Mexico, approximately 95 percent of crimes call
for prison sentences. In contrast, other countries use
alternative punishments to punish some crimes. Table 1
compares the total number of inmates with those who
are serving prison sentences in 66 countries; the data
comes from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC). It shows that there are places with fewer than
0.5 prisoners for each convicted person. These include
Norway, Finland, and Canada. This illustrates that prison
can truly be the punishment of last resort of the criminal
justice system. Finland went from having a punitive model
similar to Mexico’s to one with alternative sentences, such
as community service; it has one the lowest ratios of
prisoners per sentenced inmates (0.16 in 2010). Of the 66
countries UNODC studied, Mexico is in eighth place; this
shows how Mexico abuses prison as a punishment.
30 Interior Ministry. National Penitentiary System Statistics. Web.
2 July 2013.
*
Country
Ratio
1
Trinidad and Tobago
88.55
2
United States (2010)
25.26
3
Jamaica*
16.84
4
Chile
2.93
5
Costa Rica*
2.29
6
Argentina
1.88
7
Panama*
1.69
8
Mexico
1.54
14
Colombia
1.13
15
Nicaragua
1.00
18
Russia
0.97
35
Denmark*
0.52
36
Sweden
0.50
47
Norway*
0.27
56
Finland
0.16
59
Portugal
0.15
60
United Kingdom (Scotland)
0.14
61
The Netherlands
0.14
62
Canada**
0.13
63
Switzerland
0.13
2009 data
** 2008 data
Source: Adapted from UNODC information, 2010.
Note 1: The information in this table comes from the statistics provided by
UNODC corresponding to “convicted” and “detained” persons. “Detained”, as
defined by UNODC, is the total number of persons in penal, correctional or
psychiatric institutions under the administration of penitentiary authorities,
excluding those detained for non-criminal offences. “Convicted” refers to
the total number of persons found guilty of any criminal offence by judicial
authorities and sentenced to some form of punishment.
Note 2: The Trinidad and Tobago figure may seem excessive; nevertheless,
there are various possible explanations. According to the International Centre
for Prison Studies, 55 percent of the prison population has not been sentenced
<http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_country.php?country=69>.
According to a news article, some inmates can spend up to 10 years in pretrial
detention. Web. (<http://www.thetobagonews.com/opinion/Prisons-a-disgraceto-Government-212640161.html>. These two factors, among others, can
contribute to the ratio being so much higher than in other countries.
18
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
Part of the problem of the primacy of the use of prison
in Mexican laws is that the authorities have taken the
number of arrests, detentions, and jailings as a measure
of the system’s effectiveness.
The premise of this policy is to maximize the two criminogenic effects of the loss
of freedom: incapacitation or separation from society of a person processed or
sentenced for a crime (special prevention), and the setting of an example that
deters potential offenders (general prevention).
31 At the moment, 58.8 percent
of sentences are for less than
three years of prison. These are
not for violent or serious crimes.
See Chapter IV, “The Crimes
Inmates Are in Prison for.”
32 The crimes that did not result in
prison sentences from local and
state courts included assault
and battery (39.3 percent),
property damage (19.5
percent), and robbery (18.5
percent. Cf. INEGI (2012), put
together using information on
Pages 235 and ss.
Although the penal codes allow for a full range of alternative sentences, in practice only
fines and restitution see any significant use. Other penalties such as getting residential
treatment outside prison, having to perform community service work, or day release
are rarely used, if not in disuse. Among the main reasons why these measures (less
onerous than prison and more suitable for dealing with petty crime) have not met their
potential are31 a lack of regulations for their implementation and, mainly, that the
infrastructure, resources and organization to pursue them do not exist. Additionally,
given the present state of public opinion supporting hardline policies—as often happens
during periods of high violence and a breakdown of law and order—authorities have no
incentive, or demand from the public, to use more alternative punishments.
In fact, in 2011 only 3.6 percent of the people sentenced in local and state courts
were not incarcerated. These alternative sentences were divided into fines (70.7
percent), restitution (5.1 percent), or a combination of both (24.2 percent).32 For
federal crimes, only 0.6 percent of the punishments did not involve incarceration.
Graph 1. Sentences from local and state courts that did not involve incarceration,
national totals, 2011
Restitution only
179
5.1%
Restitution and fine
849
24.2%
2,479
70.7%
Fine only
Total: 3,507 | 3.61% of all convictions
Source: Criminal Justice Statistics, INEGI, 2011.
19
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
A comparison of prison sentences for nonviolent theft and firstdegree murder shows the simplistic nature of using prison as the
primary instrument to fight common crime. Graph 2 illustrates the
variety of prison sentences for nonviolent theft in comparison with sentences
for murder.
Length of prision sentences for murder
Graph 2. Prison sentences for theft versus murder, by
state
Length of prision sentences for theft
Overlap between theft and homicide sentence length
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Graph 2 illustrates the use and abuse of prison in Mexico. For example, in
Aguascalientes, someone who steals an amount greater than the equivalent
of 300 minimum wages (Zone B) (more than 18,414 pesos, or $1,424)
can receive a longer sentence than someone who committed murder. The
thief can be sentenced to four to ten years, whereas the murderer can be
sentenced to eight to twenty years. If this is taken to an absurd extreme,
it could sometimes turn out to be better to kill someone than to steal a
motorcycle, in terms of time served.
Only two Mexican states (Morelos and Yucatán) provide for alternatives to
jail for nonviolent theft. In the case of Morelos, if the theft is of an amount
smaller than 20 minimum wages (1,227 pesos, or $95), a sentence of 15 to
90 days of community service work can be imposed, in addition to a fine of
10 to 50 days of minimum wages. In Yucatán, theft of an amount smaller
than 100 minimum wages (6,138 pesos, or $475), the penal code calls for
20 to 50 days of community service, in addition to the possibility of a prison
term of six months to two years or of paying a fine between 20 and 50 days
of minimum wages).
Yucatán
Zacatecas
Veracruz
Tlaxcala
Tamaulipas
Tabasco
Sonora
Sinaloa
San Luis Potosí
Quintana Roo
Puebla
Querétaro
Oaxaca
Nayarit
Nuevo León
Morelos
Michoacán
Jalisco
Mexico
Hidalgo
Guerrero
Guanajuato
Durango
Colima
Source: Adapted from state penal codes.
Federal District
Coahuila
Chihuahua
Chiapas
Campeche
Baja California Sur
Baja California
Aguascalientes
0
20
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
Table 2. International comparison of the percentage
of the prison population that has not been sentenced;
years vary
Ranking
b) The use of prison for pretrial detention
In line with the policy giving primacy to prison as a
punishment, many restrictions have been imposed on
allowing the accused to be released on bail or on their
own recognizance while awaiting trial or sentencing.
This means that thousands of people who have the
right to be free during this time instead find themselves
behind bars.
A number of Latin American countries have a high
percentage of their prison population that has not been
sentenced; the highest number is 83.6 percent in Bolivia.
As can be seen in Table 2, in Mexico, the number of
inmates that have not been sentenced is 41.3 percent.
In Mexico, the numbers of those in pretrial
detention in federal and state prisons have been
on the rise. As can be seen in Graph 3, this figure
doubled between 1994 (when it was at its lowest) and
2004, going from around 41,400 to 81,900. Since then,
the number of inmates who have not been sentenced
has risen, reaching their highest level in January 2013
of 100,304, which represents 41.3 percent of the total
prison population. Of these, 75,413 are under state
jurisdiction and the rest are in federal facilities. In state
and local prisons, the percentage is 39 percent, while it
is 50.2 percent in federal facilities.33
33 Interior Ministry. National Penitentiary System Statistics.
Web. 2 July 2013.
Country
Inmates who
have not been
sentenced
1
San Marino (2011)a
0.0%
2
Tuvalu (2012)b
0.0%
3
Laos (2004)
1.0%
8
Taiwan (2013)
6.3%
15
Singapore
47
Russia (2009)
15.2%
52
Germany (2012)
16.7%
73
United States (2010)
21.5%
78
Costa Rica (2012)
22.4%
84
Chile (2013)
23.6%
89
El Salvador (2013)
24.7%
93
France (2013)
25.3%
107
South Africa (2012)
28.2%
114
Colombia (2013)
30.8%
116
South Korea (2012)
31.1%
132
Ecuador (2012)
37.0%
135
Brazil (2012)
148
Mexico (2013)
41.3%
164
Argentina (2011)
50.4%
170
Dominican Republic
52.7%
173
Honduras (2012)
54.0%
174
Guatemala (2010)
54.4%
181
Peru (2012)
58.5%
191
Uruguay (2012)
64.6%
192
India (2011)
64.8%
193
Panama (2013)
64.8%
195
Venezuela (2010)
66.0%
202
Haiti (2013)
72.6%
206
Democratic Republic of Congo
(2010)
82.0%
207
Bolivia (2011)
83.6%
208
Libya (2013)
89.4%
a
There are only two inmates in San Marino.
b
There are only 12 prisoners in Tuvalu.
8.8%
38.0%
Source: Adapted from data from International Centre for Prison Studies.
Web. 4 July 2013. <prisonstudies.org>
The use and misuse of pretrial detention
is one of the main causes of overpopulation
and overcrowding in the penitentiary system.
20
10
0
Source: Interior Ministry. National Penitentiary System Statistics. January 2013.
0
18.2
20
Federal District
2013
40
23.6
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
100.3
96.7
97.8
93.7
92.3
88.9
87.5
89.6
87.8
81.9
77.7
73.7
71.5
63.7
61.4
120
Tamaulipas
31.6
36.9
Campeche
29.7
37.4
Michoacán
Mexico
37.8
Coahuila
37.9
Sinaloa
Guanajuato
32.2
39.0
National
Morelos
39.2
41.5
Baja California
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
54.4
50.3
47.9
45.3
41.4
44.0
42.2
46.3
56.2
51.4
45.0
100
Zacatecas
42.6
Puebla
45.8
Nuevo León
42.9
45.8
Chiapas
Hidalgo
45.9
Querétaro
43.0
46.0
Veracruz
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
80
Sonora
46.8
46.2
47.2
Yucatán
Aguascalientes
48.8
Guerrero
San Luis Potosí
49.1
Nayarit
Colima
54.5
Jalisco
49.5
55.0
Tlaxcala
Chihuahua
58.4
55.5
Tabasco
61.0
30
Oaxaca
40
62.0
50
Baja California Sur
60
64.3
70
Durango
80
66.7
60
Quintana Roo
Thousands of pre-trial detainees
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Source: Based on Jurimetría figures with data from Carranza, et al. (1983): 1972 and 1981; Interior Ministry:
1988-2000 y 2013; and Public Safety Ministry 2001-2012.
Graph 4. Percentage of inmates without a sentence in state prisons, by state,
January 2013
100
90
Percentage of pre-trial detainees
21
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
Graph 3. Inmates who have not been sentenced in Mexico (in thousands and as a percentage
of total inmates), 1988-2013
70
22
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
16.3
30
28.7
39.4
40
33.1
Chihuahua
Coahuila
40.3
49.0
47.6
Mexico
50
Querétaro
50.2
49.7
Morelos
50.2
Campeche
50.5
Puebla
National
50.8
Yucatán
54.3
51.2
Tlaxcala
Tamaulipas
57.6
56.7
59.1
Sonora
Durango
59.6
60
Guerrero
59.8
Chiapas
Baja California
63.5
62.4
Veracruz
Baja California Sur
Guanajuato
72.0
Hidalgo
66.3
72.1
Quintana Roo
Colima
72.6
Zacatecas
66.4
72.7
Michoacán
70
Nayarit
76.2
74.3
Jalisco
80.0
76.5
80
Aguascalientes
90
85.2
100
94.5
Graph 5. Percentage of inmates without a sentence in federal prisons, by state, January 2013
20
10
Nuevo León
Federal District
Sinaloa
San Luis Potosí
Oaxaca
Tabasco
0
Source: Interior Ministry. National Penitentiary System Statistics. January 2013.
34 According to information from the Interior Ministry (1990-2000
and 2013) and the Public Safety Ministry (2001-2012), the
percentages of inmates without sentences at the federal level
between 2000 and 2013 are the following: 28.6% (2000),
35.2% (2005), 49.7% (2010), 53.3% (2011), 50.3% (2012), y
50.2% (2013).
The percentage of inmates without a sentence in
federal prisons has risen in recent years.34 Thus,
after dropping to its lowest point (28.1 percent) in the
country’s recent history, this indicator began growing
and then took off: In 2011 it reached 53.3 percent.
In 2013, it was 50.2 percent. This could be due to the
increase in the load of the federal courts. For example,
the country’s battle against organized crime has
caused the number of those detained in drug-peddling
cases to rise. A greater work load means more case
delays, explaining why the number of those in pretrial
detention has risen.
***
The Mexican state has given primacy to prison
as a method of punishment. In 2011, 96.4
percent of prison sentences imposed prison
terms. What purpose do our jails serve if we mete out
similar punishments of the same duration to people
who commit nonviolent theft and people who commit
first-degree murder?
23
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
IV. The Crimes Inmates Are in Prison for
The previous section shows the use and abuse of prison punishments in Mexico.
Given this situation, it is also important to understand who is in our prisons and for
which crimes. Answering these questions allows us to fully comprehend how prisons
are used in Mexico; first, we show the distribution of interns by jurisdiction. Next,
we disaggregate the different types of crimes that have received a prison sentence.
a. Distribution of crimes by type
There are 242,754 inmates in the country (Table 3), or 207.1 inmates per 100,000
inhabitants. Of these, 79.6 percent (193,194) have been prosecuted or convicted
of crimes under local or state jurisdiction. The remaining 20.4 percent (49,560) fall
within the scope of federal jurisdiction. Out of the total number of inmates, 217,900
are in one of the 405 local and state facilities, while the remaining 24,854 are in
one of the country’s 15 federal facilities. Although the vast majority of inmates in
local and state facilities are there for crimes that fall under state jurisdiction, 12.2
percent are serving sentences for federal crimes. In the case of the federal facilities,
7.5 percent of inmates are there for crimes that fall under state jurisdiction.
Table 3. Distribution of inmates in prison under state and federal jurisdiction,
Jan. 2013
Number
of inmates
for crimes
under state
jurisdiction
Local/state facilities (405)
Total inmates
for crimes
under state
and federal
jurisdiction
191,318
26,582
1,876
22,978
24,854
193,194
49,560
242,754
Federal facilities (15)
Total facilities (420)
Number
of inmates
for crimes
under federal
jurisdiction
217,900
Source: National Penitentiary System Statistics, Interior Ministry, January 2013.
As Map 1 shows, the states and entities with the
highest number of inmates per 100,000 inhabitants are
Baja California (484.9), Federal District, or Mexico City
(466.0), Sonora (442.7), and Colima (434.0). States
with the lowest incarceration rates are Zacatecas
(63.2), Tlaxcala (67.2), Guanajuato (72.2), Coahuila
(82.6), and Veracruz (101.9).
Map 1. Incarceration Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants
(state jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction), 2013
Source: National Penitentiary System Statistics, Interior Ministry,
+400
January 2013.
301-400
Note: The population for 2013 was determined based on a calculation
from the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI)
Population and Housing Census.
201-300
101-200
60-100
24
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
Graph 6 analyzes the percentage of inmates in local or state facilities in each
state, according to the type of offense (state law or federal law).
Graph 6. Percentage of Inmates According to Type of Offense (state jurisdiction or
federal jurisdiction), January 2013
% Federal jurisdiction
% Local jurisdiction
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Jalisco
National*
Sinaloa
Tamaulipas
Morelos
Guerrero
Oaxaca
Baja California
Aguascalientes
Sonora
Nuevo León
Tlaxcala
Michoacán
Baja California Sur
Chihuahua
Guanajuato
Campeche
Colima
Querétaro
Chiapas
Federal District
Hidalgo
Nayarit
Yucatán
Puebla
Quintana Roo
Tabasco
Zacatecas
Mexico
Durango
Veracruz
Coahuila
San Luis Potosí
0
Source: National Penitentiary System Statistics, Interior Ministry, January 2013.
Note: The national data* contain information from state and local facilities (in the 31 states and the Federal District) and federal facilities. The data for
each state refer only to local and state incarceration facilities.
35 It includes fraud, dispossession,
breach of trust, and extortion.
b. What types of crimes are inmates in prison for?
Table 4 shows the breakdown of crimes that fall under state jurisdiction.
According to data from INEGI, in 2011, 42.9 percent of inmates were accused or
convicted of theft. In the theft category, the subcategory of residential burglary
has the highest number of prisoners, with 8.4 percent of all crimes. Furthermore,
17.3 percent of inmates have been charged with or convicted of homicide; 11.8
percent for sexual offenses; 6.3 percent for crimes against property35; and 5.8
percent for kidnapping. This table shows that more unsentenced inmates are in
jail for theft than for any other crime.
25
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
Table 4. Nationwide penitentiary population that committed crimes under state jurisdiction, by type of offense, 2011
Total
inmates
Offense
All local jurisdiction
offenses
169,398
Pre-trial
detainees
Percentage
of pre-trial
detainees
Convicts
Percentage
of convicts
100.0%
77,018
45.5%
92,380
54.5%
Percentage
of inmates
Total thefts
72,700
42.9%
33,858
46.6%
38,824
53.4%
Burglary
14,256
8.4%
5,837
40.9%
8,419
59.1%
Vehicle thefts
11,467
6.8%
4,234
36.9%
7,233
63.1%
4,347
2.6%
1,865
42.9%
2,482
57.1%
Business thefts
Other thefts
42,630
25.2%
21,922
51.4%
20,708
48.6%
Murder and Manslaughter
29,363
17.3%
10,243
34.9%
19,120
65.1%
3.5%
3,008
51.2%
2,862
48.8%
11.8%
7,395
37.0%
12,588
63.0%
9,786
5.8%
4,812
49.2%
4,974
50.8%
10,683
6.3%
5,180
48.5%
5,503
51.5%
1,236
0.7%
729
59.0%
507
41.0%
12,522
59.6%
8,491
40.4%
Assault
5,870
Sexual abuse
19,983
Kidnapping
All crimes against property
Extortion
Other offenses
21,013
12.4%
Source: Criminal Justice Statistics, INEGI.
In regard to inmates in prison for federal crimes (see Table 5), most are in for
crimes against health (drug crimes, 48.2 percent), followed by violations of the
Federal Firearms and Explosives Act (27.1 percent).
Table 5. Nationwide prison population that committed crimes under federal jurisdiction, by type of offense, 2011
Offense
All federal jurisdiction
offenses
Total
inmates
33,716
Pre-trial
detainees
Percentage
of pre-trial
detainees
Convicts
Percentage
of convicts
100.0%
17,617
52.3%
16,099
47.7%
Percentage
of inmates
Crimes against public health
16,255
48.2%
8,479
52.2%
7,776
47.8%
Federal Law of Firearms and
Explosives
9,143
27.1%
4,342
47.5%
4,801
52.5%
Organized crime
1,555
4.6%
1,148
73.8%
407
26.2%
Conspiracy
944
2.8%
503
53.3%
441
46.7%
Crimes against property
790
2.3%
285
36.1%
505
63.9%
Crimes against life and bodily
integrity
605
1.8%
152
25.1%
453
74.9%
Environmental crimes
Other offenses
432
1.3%
310
71.8%
122
28.2%
3,992
11.8%
2,398
60.1%
1,594
39.9%
26
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
c. Length of sentences
Considering that most inmates are accused or convicted of theft (in the case of
state and local crimes) or drug-related crimes (federal law), we now examine
how long, on average, they remain in jail.
In 2011, 58.8 percent of the sentences imposed in the country were
for less than three years of prison, which in the Mexican legal context
corresponds to punishments for nonviolent crimes (Graph 7). This
means that most of the penitentiary system’s resources went to minor crimes,
mainly drug possession and nonviolent petty thefts. Crime policy in Mexico has
cheapened the use of prison, which should be the last resort of society.
At the national level, only 3.5 percent of punishments called for alternatives
to prison. The remaining 96.5 percent are divided as follows: 54.3 percent for
jail sentences of less than three years, 28.9 percent for sentences between
three and seven years, and 13.3 percent for sentences over seven years.
In four states, more than 75 percent of sentences were for less than three
years: Aguascalientes (83.2), Baja California (79.9), Guanajuato (79.3), and
Michoacán (78.1). In turn, the states with the highest percentage of sentences
over seven years were Guerrero (37.2), Morelos (34.9), and Oaxaca (21.0). On
the other hand, the states with the highest percentage of unsentenced inmates
were Yucatan (23.4), Querétaro (17.7), and Hidalgo (14.5).
Graph 7. Distribution of Criminal Punishments
(both jurisdictions), by State, 2011
No prison sentence
3 to 7 years
Under 3 years
Over 7 years
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Yucatán
Zacatecas
Tlaxcala
Veracruz
Tabasco
Tamaulipas
Sonora
Sinaloa
San Luis Potosí
Querétaro
Quintana Roo
Puebla
Oaxaca
Nuevo León
Nayarit
Morelos
Michoacán
Jalisco
Mexico
Hidalgo
Guerrero
Guanajuato
Durango
Federal District
Colima
Coahuila
Chiapas
Chihuahua
Campeche
Baja California
Baja California Sur
National
Aguascalientes
0
Criminal Justice Statistics, INEGI, 2011.
***
Currently, there are 242,754 prisoners in Mexico. Three out of four have been
accused or convicted of crimes under state jurisdiction. In spite of the exponential
growth of violence in recent years, especially in relation to murder and kidnapping,
most inmates are incarcerated for theft. Furthermore, despite public support for
longer sentences and the backing of some political parties for this, in reality, most
of the sentences in Mexico last less than three years. What is the purpose of jail
in Mexico if the vast majority of inmates serving sentences in prison are there for
minor crimes, with sentences of less than three years, who could very well have
received alternative punishments? Prison is abused as a punishment while less
expensive and more appropriate punishments are disregarded.
27
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
V. The Consequences of the Overuse
of Prison in Mexico
The large increase in the prison population in recent
years has far exceeded prison capacity.
This has caused a serious overpopulation and overcrowding problem, one
of the main impediments for policies and programs seeking to reintegrate
inmates into society.
a. Overpopulation and overcrowding
In January 2013, 242,754 people were incarcerated in Mexico in a
space designed for 195,278, which puts the occupation rate was 124.3
percent. According to the most recent data, 220 of Mexico’s 420 penitentiary
centers are overpopulated.36
The occupancy rate depends on the type of prison being analyzed. As seen in
Table 6, the occupancy rate in the federal penitentiary system is 95.8 percent;
it is at, but not over, capacity. However, the occupancy rate in state and local
prisons is 128.7 percent.
Table 6. Capacity and occupancy rate in Mexican penitentiary centers in
Mexico, January 2013
Total
Federal prisons
Local and state prisons*
Centers
Capacity
Occupancy
Occupancy
420
195,278
242,754
124.3%
15
25,952
24,854
95.8%
405
169,326
217,900
128.7%
Source: Interior Ministry. National Penitentiary System Statistics. January 2013.
* The local and state penitentiary centers are divided into three groups: 11 correspond to the Federal District
government, 303 to state governments, and 91 to municipal governments.
Penitentiary studies literature considers overcrowding to be critical when it
exceeds 120 percent of designed capacity.37 After having arrived at a disquieting
152 percent prison occupancy rate in 1990, the country managed to reduce
the problem in the next few years; in 1994, the rate had fallen to 98 percent.
Nevertheless, the penitentiary population began growing again, causing the
system to be overpopulated again in recent years despite the construction of
new prisons.
36 Interior Ministry, National
Penitentiary System Statistics.
37 Carranza, Elías.
“Sobrepoblación penitenciaria
en América latina y el Caribe:
situación y respuestas
posibles” (Penitentiary
Overpopulation in Latin
America and the Caribbean:
The Situation and Possible
Answers). Justicia penal y
sobrepoblación penitenciaria:
respuestas posibles (Criminal
Justice and Penitentiary
Overpopulation: Possible
Answers). Ed. Elías Carranza.
Mexico: Siglo XXI, 2001.
28
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
Between 1995 and 2004 the penitentiary population in Mexico doubled.
This was the period of greatest growth of the prison population. The
average increase between those years was 8.3 percent. After 2004, the
growth has been smaller, with an annual rate of 2.7 percent.
38 De la Luz González, María.
“The federal government will
operate 12 new penitentiaries.”
El Universal 17 June 2009.
Web. 2 July 2013. <http://
www.eluniversal.com.mx/
nacion/169058.html>.
39 The states where oral trials
are taking place are: Baja
California, Chiapas, Chihuahua,
Durango, Guanajuato, Mexico,
Morelos, Nuevo León, Oaxaca,
Tabasco, Veracruz, Yucatan,
and Zacatecas. See <www.
reformapenalmexico.org>.
Date of access: 3 July 2013.
The occupancy rates have begun to fall, but not enough to solve the prison
overpopulation problem. The drop in the occupancy rate is due to a major
investment to build high-security federal prisons during the Calderón
administration. The original plan was to build 12 penitentiary centers.38 Also,
there have been increased early-release numbers and other changes that have
reduced the pressure on prisons. Additionally, there has been a more diligent
use of pretrial detention by judges in states that have begun to carry out the
accusatory and adversarial criminal justice model (generally called the “oral trial
system”) following the criminal justice and public safety reforms of June 2008.39
Graph 8. Prison capacity, population, and occupancy rates in Mexico,
1988-2013 (nationally)
Prison population
Prison capacity
260,000
124%
240,000
134%
220,000
200,000
128%
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
Occupancy
98%
152%
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
Source: Interior Ministry: 1988-2000 and 2013. Public Safety Ministry 2001-2012.
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
0
29
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
In spite of the reduction in the rate of growth of the prison population in
recent years, the overcrowding situation is still critical. Of the country’s 420
penitentiary centers, 220 (52.4 percent) are overpopulated; these 220
centers house 74 percent of Mexico’s inmates. Cells built to house six
or eight people hold 14 or up to 20 inmates, meaning that there is
not enough room for everyone to sleep, even on the floor. This type of
overcrowding goes against the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners of the United Nations (Articles 9 and 10);40 and it is considered to be
cruel punishment in accordance with international human rights standards.41
40 See <http://www2.ohchr.org/
spanish/law/reclusos.htm>.
41 Carranza, Elías. “Sobrepoblación
penitenciaria”: 22.
58.2%
60
46.1%
74.3%
70.6%
Tlaxcala
82.4%
Coahuila
Campeche
80
Guanajuato
86.4%
83.2%
Yucatán
92.4%
88.7%
Sinaloa
Tamaulipas
95.2%
93.9%
95.2%
Oaxaca
Durango
97.8%
Querétaro
97.9%
San Luis Potosí
Baja California Sur
109.6%
Baja California
100
100.7%
112.2%
Aguascalientes
123.0%
115.6%
120
Veracruz
133.8%
142.6%
Puebla
140
128.7%
144.7%
143.2%
Chiapas
150.3%
147.4%
Tabasco
Guerrero
Nuevo León
154.3%
160
Morelos
167.2%
166.4%
Hidalgo
176.1%
180
170.5%
200
Mexico
184.7%
Graph 9. Federal prison occupancy rate, 2013
40
20
Zacatecas
Michoacán
Colima
Quintana Roo
National
Chihuahua
Sonora
Jalisco
Nayarit
Federal District
0
Source: Interior Ministry. National Penitentiary System Statistics. January 2013.
Note: The prison occupancy rate was calculated by dividing total prison occupancy by total prison capacity
and multiplying by 100.
Table 7. Penitentiary centers with the highest occupancy rates in Mexico, January 2013
Penitentiary center
State
Tepeaca district jail
Puebla
Capacity
46
Occupancy
266
578.26%
Cereso Tlapa de Comonfort
Guerrero
60
278
463.33%
Cereso Apan
Hidalgo
22
94
427.27%
Tizayuca district jail
Hidalgo
47
181
385.11%
Izúcar de Matamoros district jail
Puebla
76
265
348.68%
Cereso Zihuatanejo
Guerrero
67
228
340.3%
CPRS Jilotepec
Mexico state
86
289
336.05%
Cereso Ometepec
Guerrero
52
173
332.69%
Cereso San Pedro Cholula
Puebla
147
484
329.25%
Xicotepec de Juárez district jail
Puebla
81
263
324.69%
Cereso Puerto Peñasco
Sonora
84
268
319.05%
Atlixco district jail
Puebla
63
195
309.52%
CPRS Chalco
Mexico state
548
1,692
308.76%
Source: Interior Ministry. National Penitentiary System Statistics. January 2013.
Note: The prison occupancy rate was calculated by dividing total prison occupancy by total prison capacity and multiplying by 100.
Note: CERESO means “Centro de Readaptación Social”.
% Occupancy
30
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
As shown in Table 8, it is worrisome that several of the country’s larger
penitentiary centers have serious overcrowding. Some even have occupancy
rates above 200 percent.
Table 8. Occupancy rate of penitentiary centers with larger capacity, January 2013
Penitentiary center
State
Capacity
Occupancy
Islas Marías penitentiary complex
Federal
8,040
7,732
% Occupancy
96.17%
Reclusorio Preventivo Norte
Federal District
5,631
12,256
217.65%
Reclusorio Preventivo Oriente
Federal District
5,376
12,143
225.87%
Cereso El Hongo
Baja California
4,688
4,268
91.04%
Reclusorio Preventivo Sur
Federal District
3,500
9,596
274.17%
Centro Varonil de Readaptación Social Santa
Martha Acatitla
Federal District
3,319
2,421
72.94%
Cereso Monterrey (Topo Chico)
Nuevo León
3,282
5,123
156.09%
Cereso Estatal 1 and 2
Chihuahua
3,002
3,848
128.18%
Reclusorio Preventivo de Guadalajara
Jalisco
3,000
7,023
234.1%
Cereso Lic. Jorge A. Duarte (Tijuana)
Baja California
2,712
6,673
246.05%
Cereso Puebla
Puebla
2,206
3,268
148.14%
Cereso Hermosillo
Sonora
2,153
4,243
197.07%
Cereso 1 Puente Grande
Jalisco
2,087
5,749
275.47%
Source: Interior Ministry. National Penitentiary System Statistics. January 2013.
Note: Only penitentiary centers with capacities or occupancy of more than 3,000 people are included. The prison occupancy rate was calculated by
dividing total prison occupancy by total prison capacity and multiplying by 100.
In general, prison overcrowding and overpopulation
makes it difficult to operate effective programs to
reintegrate convicts into society.
The prison population increase has not only brought about a reduction
in social-services coverage but there is also a lack of adequate facilities for
psychotherapeutic and educational activities that are key in helping prepare
inmates for their reintegration into society.42
42 Patiño, José Patricio. El nuevo
modelo de administración
penitenciaria (The New Model
of Penitentiary Administration).
Mexico: Porrúa, 2010): 115.
Overcrowding and a lack of public spending on prisons have meant shortages in
goods and services. This has caused conflict in relation to prison space, food and
services that international norms say should be freely provided by the prison
system. An informal system of charges has developed where inmates have to
pay to have access to certain services or to be freed from certain obligations.
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
There are other items the inmates need such as sheets,
blankets, clothes, and shoes, which should be provided
by the institution. They are provided in the federal
penitentiaries, but the surveys show that this apparently
is not the case when it comes to prisons in the Federal
District and the State of Mexico (Table 10).
Water
2002
2005
2009
2012
Federal District
61%
67%
74%
-
State of Mexico
39%
58%
71%
-
Federal prisons
-
-
-
56.5%
Federal District
33%
31%
21%
-
State of Mexico
20%
20%
18%
-
-
-
-
13.4%
Centros Federales
31.7%
49.2%
43.6%
State of Mexico 2005
53.1%
44.7%
40
Federal District 2005
33.5%
50
30
20
10
Federal Prisons 2012
State of Mexico 2009
Federal District 2009
0
Source: Surveys of the Imprisoned Population. CIDE: 2002, 2005, 2009,
and 2012.
43 National Human Rights Commission. “Special Report of the National
Human Rights Commission on the Human Rights Situation in
Imprisonment Centers of Local and Municipal Governments in the
Mexican Republic.” Gaceta 170 (2004): 86-87.
44 Guerrero, Eduardo. “Las cárceles y el crimen” (Jails and Crime).
Nexos, 1 Jan. 2012. Web. 3 July 2013. <http://www.nexos.
com.mx/?P=leerarticulo&Article=2102629>.
45 The 2012 survey includes data from eight centers, including
five in the Complejo Penitenciario Islas Marías. The other three
were Cefereso 1, Altiplano, in the state of Mexico; Cefereso 2,
Occidente, in Jalisco; and Cefereso 8, Norponiente, in Sinaloa.
Table 10 Percentage of inmates to whom the institution
provides personal items, 2002-2012
Table 9. Percentage of inmates who reported not
having sufficient food or drinking water, 2002-2012
Food
60
State of Mexico 2002
b. Deterioration of services
The Center for Research and Teaching of Economics (CIDE)
has conducted four surveys of the prison population that
serve to illustrate the lack of resources for inmates, as well
as limits on the access to and quality of the resources that
do exist. The first three surveys—2002, 2005, and 2009—
centered on penitentiaries in the Federal District and the
state of the Mexico. The latest one—2012—was taken
at Federal Centers of Social Readjustment (Ceferesos,
or Centros Federales de Readaptación Social).45 These
surveys report a deterioration in the amount and quality
of food, potable water, and items for daily use, in addition
to poor medical care, little communication between
inmates and their families, and a lack of educational,
sports and work activities; a high percentage also said
they felt unsafe inside their cells.
Graph 10. Percentage of inmates who consider that the
quality of food they receive is bad or very bad, 2002-2012
46.7%
Thus, some inmates must pay to use a public telephone,
for missing roll call, to avoid cleanup work, and to
have access to medical care, among other things.43
Under these conditions, corruption and violence have
become part of an informal system of the distribution
and provision of services. Corruption networks that
operate in penitentiaries have been documented; they
are sometimes run by public servants (particularly, the
guards), and sometimes extortion activities are carried
out by dominant groups of inmates.44
Federal District 2002
31
Federal District
and State of Mexico
(2002-2009)
Federal prisons,
2012
Sheets
1.6%
99.8%
Blankets
3.5%
99.4%
Clothing
1.3%
99.4%
Shoes
1.1%
98.3%
Source: Surveys of the Imprisoned Population. CIDE: 2002, 2005, 2009,
and 2012.
32
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
The federal prisons survey showed that there is a shortage of other items
(Graph 11). The inmates reported a lack of toothpaste, toothbrushes, and
water for their personal hygiene; in general, the shortages are much more
serious in state and local prisons.46
72.5%
Graph 11. Percentage of inmates in federal prisons where the institution does
not provide daily use items, 2012
80
70
60
20
10
7.2%
26.3%
30
12.2%
40
20.6%
50
Toothpaste
Toothbrush
Sufficient
water for
personal hygiene
Soap
Toilet paper
0
Source: Survey of the Imprisoned Population in Federal Centers of Social Readjustment, CIDE, 2012.
46 The 2002, 2005, and 2009 surveys do not
include questions about these items.
Additionally, the inmates gave bad marks to the medical care they receive in
prison (Table 11). This indicator has also deteriorated since 2002.
Table 11. Inmates’ perception of the medical care they receive in Federal District, State of Mexico, and federal
prisons, 2002-2012
Federal
District
State of
Mexico
Federal
District
State of
Mexico
Federal
District
State of
Mexico
Federal
Prisons
2012
2002
2002
2005
2005
2009
2009
Very good
2.38%
3.68%
2.31%
3.52%
2.25%
2.65%
4.4%
Good
21.2%
34.1%
20.8%
27.7%
20.5%
21.2%
21.3%
Fair
41.8%
48.3%
42.1%
46.0%
44.3%
42.6%
33.5%
Bad
20.2%
10.5%
16.4%
12.8%
18.8%
18.3%
18.7%
Very bad
14.4%
3.5%
18.5%
9.9%
14.3%
15.3%
17.4%
Source: Surveys of the Imprisoned Population. CIDE: 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2012.
33
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
CNDH reports agree with the failing grades the inmates gave the medical care
they receive in the penitentiaries:
During the visits, it was found that medical care is deficient in most
of the country’s prisons because they don’t have enough doctors,
dentists, or trained nurses, and the situation is worse when it
comes to gynecological care (indispensable for female inmates)
and psychiatric services; in some places there is not even a doctor
on duty, causing prison administrators to have to request help
from other institutions. Also, there is not enough medicine to treat
even the most common diseases; there aren’t enough medical
instruments and supplies needed for first aid treatment.47
Maintaining contact with their families and having access to sporting,
educational, and work activities are key areas in preparing convicts
to reintegrate into society.
According to the 2009 CIDE survey, 14.9 percent of inmates in the Federal
District and the State of Mexico never receive visits; in federal penitentiaries,
this figure had risen to 80.3 percent in 2012—mainly as a result of a lack of
money, because family members lived far away, or because the process of
visiting was expensive, or because inmates were not authorized to receive
visitors. Thus, a recommendation of the CIDE researchers was to promote
communication with and visits from relatives, restricting such communication
and visits only when absolutely necessary.
In light of this, it is important to recognize that the 2008-2012 Penitentiary
Strategy established the “Televisita” program, allowing long-distance
communication with inmates through teleconferences. The project was initiated
in the maximum-security Cefereso 1 “Altiplano,” with the goal of expanding it.48
47 National Human Rights Commission.
“Special Report,” 91-92.
48 Órgano Administrativo Desconcentrado
de Prevención y Readaptación Social
de la Secretaría de Seguridad Pública
(Decentralized Agency for Prevention
and Social Readjustment of the Public
Safety Ministry). “Informe de Rendición de
Cuentas 2006-2012 (etapa 3)” (20062012 Accountability Report (Phase 3).
Web. 5 July 2013. <http://www.ssp.gob.
mx/portalWebApp/ShowBinary?nodeId=/
BEA%20Repository/1222276//archivo>.
49 2009 percentage figures of inmates who
said their families had to pay: To enter the
penitentiary: 45.0 and 29.5 percent, in the
Federal District and the state of Mexico,
respectively; to send for them: 59.0 and
30.5 percent; to bring in food: 65.0 y 54.0
percent; to bring in clothing: 69.0 y 51.0
percent; to bring in other items: 63.5 y
51.0 percent.
In spite of these advances, much remains to be done to improve the treatment
relatives receive when they visit inmates; according to the inmates, it is
common practice for family members to be charged to enter the penitentiary,
to send for the inmate, as well as to bring in food, clothing, or other items.49
Table 12. Inmates’ perception of the treatment their families receive
when they visit, 2009 and 2012
Federal District and
State of Mexico, 2009
Very good
2.0%
Federal prisons,
2012
2.4%
Good
20.7%
8.5%
Fair
33.6%
24.1%
Bad
26.9%
25.0%
Very bad
16.9%
16.7%
Bad and very bad
43.8%
41.7%
Source: Surveys of the Imprisoned Population. CIDE: 2009 and 2012.
34
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
A high percentage of inmates participate in sporting, work, educational,
cleanup, and training activities (Table 13). Nevertheless, there is much to
be done to get to the 100 percent mark.
Table 13. Percentage of inmates who participate in the following
activities, 2009 and 2012
Federal District and
State of Mexico, 2009
Federal prisons,
2012
Sports
76.5%
84.4%
Cleanup
68.4%
82.6%
Work
73.0%
46.2%
Not determined
59.3%
80.0% (approximately)
56.0%
Training
Educational
Source: Surveys of the Imprisoned Population. CIDE: 2009 and 2012.
In light of these deficiencies in programs to promote inmates’ reintegration
into society, the 2008-2012 Penitentiary Strategy considered establishing
alliances with other governmental institutions that would result in greater
personal development and greater technical training.50
c. Inability to govern prisons
The growth of the prison population has caused the ratio of inmates to prison
employees to increase. Thus, it comes as no surprise that the governance
of prisons is not in the hands of the state but rather in the hands of some
inmates, as has been documented by the national media. To illustrate this
point, it is worth remembering that in February 2012, the worst prison riot
in recent years took place in Apodaca, Nuevo León; at least 44 died and 37
prisoners escaped.51
On the other hand, on February 11, 2013, the chief of the guards at the
Puerto Peñasco prison in Sonora state was detained for possession of drugs
with intent to sell. 52 Also in February 2013, five dangerous criminals left the
Hermosillo penitentiary without having completed their sentences because
12 employees accepted a bribe of nearly a million pesos ($76,000) to let
them go.53
The most recent data available, from June 2011, shows there were 44,938
prison employees and 225,697 inmates that month; that is five inmates per
employee. If only state and local prisons are examined, the ratio was 7.1
inmates per prison employee.
50 Public Safety Ministry. Documented
Record: Results of the 2008-2012
Penitentiary Strategy. (Mexico: Public
Safety Ministry, 2012: 39. Web. <http://
www.ssp.gob.mx/portalWebApp/
ShowBinary?nodeId=/BEA%20
Repository/1214078//archivo>.
51 “Chronology: Apodaca riot, most
serious in 5 years.” El Universal,
19 Feb. 2012. Web. 2 July 2013.
<http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/
nacion/169058.html>.
52 Sánchez Dórame, Daniel. “Chief of
guards in Sonora prison detained
for selling drugs.” Excélsior, 19
Feb. 2013. Web. 3 July 2013.
<http://www.excelsior.com.mx/
nacional/2013/02/19/885073>.
53 Sánchez Dórame, Daniel. “Network of
corruption allows 5 inmates to leave
prison before completing sentences.”
Excélsior, 26 Feb. 2013. Web. 5 July
2013. <http://www.excelsior.com.mx/
nacional/2013/02/26/886206>.
35
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
20.0
18.8
Graph 12. Inmates for each penitentiary employee, 2011
2.8
2.8
Guanajuato
Baja California Sur
3.7
Michoacán
4.0
3.1
3.8
Chiapas
Aguascalientes
4.4
Yucatán
3.9
4.5
4.4
Durango
4.6
Chihuahua
4.7
Tlaxcala
4.9
San Luis Potosí
Tamaulipas
5.2
5.0
National
6.0
Querétaro
6.0
5.6
Hidalgo
6.3
Mexico
Morelos
6.9
7.2
Puebla
6.7
7.3
Guerrero
Colima
7.4
Nuevo León
Campeche
7.8
7.7
Jalisco
8.0
Coahuila
9.2
Veracruz
8.7
9.3
10.0
Nayarit
11.5
12.0
11.0
12.9
12.6
14.0
Sonora
16.0
Baja California
13.9
18.0
2.0
Source: National Public Safety System, 2011.
Zacatecas
Oaxaca
Federal District
Sinaloa
Tabasco
Quintana Roo
0
As other studies have shown, the precarious operating and living
conditions in prisons allow criminal groups to create their own
governance system inside the facilities.54 Given the informality of the
agreements behind such self-government, violence and intimidation prevail
as everyday tools to enforce the agreements or rules imposed by some of
the groups. According to the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH),
large corruption networks operate in prisons; this has meant that inmates
with economic power and criminal leadership have corrupted authorities to
the extent that inmates can organize or direct organized crime groups from
inside the penitentiaries.55
Consequently, in recent years, rioting has increased and violence has risen
to alarming levels.
The preliminary report of the Third Investigative Unit of the CNDH, charged
with monitoring prisons, found that 269 incidents took place in Mexican
prisons between 2010 and May 2013.56
54 Skarbek, David. “Governance and Prison
Gangs.” American Political Science Review
105.4 (Nov. 2011): 702-716.
55 National Human Rights Commission.
Special Report: 86.51.0 percent.
56 Prado, Henia. “Twelve inmates killed every
month in prison.” Reforma, 15 June 2013.
36
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
Graph 13. Violent incidents in Mexican prisons, 2010-2013
Fights
41.3%
Murders
20.1%
Prison breaks
11.5%
Suicides
11.5%
Mutinies
3.0%
Hunger strikes
2.6%
Natural deaths
2.6%
Attempted prision breaks
1.9%
Confrontations
1.5%
Attempted mutinies
1.5%
Accidents
1.5%
Fires
0.7%
Kidnappings
0.4%
Source: Preliminary results of the Third Investigative Unit of CNDH, 2013. Available in: Prado, Henia.
“Twelve inmates killed every month in prison.” Reforma. National. 15 June 2013.
Inmates have very clear insights into how the violence and prison selfgovernance situation affects their safety. An important percentage of
the inmates feel unsafe in their cells (Table 14).
Table 14. Level of safety federal inmates feel in their cells, 2012
Altiplano
Occidente
Norponiente
Islas
Very safe
58.6%
48.5%
55.1%
34.1%
35.8%
Somewhat safe
34.5%
45.5%
40.4%
48.3%
38.9%
6.9%
6.1%
4.5%
17.3%
25.3%
Not safe
Rehilete
Source: Survey of the Imprisoned Population in Federal Centers of Social Readjustment, CIDE, 2012.
In light of these situations, the administration of Felipe Calderón, through
the 2008-2012 Penitentiary Strategy, created the Penitentiary Career Service
through the National Academy of Penitentiary Administration (ANAP)57 with
a view toward the training and professionalization of penitentiary personnel
(managers, supervisors, guards and other security personnel, technical staff,
and crisis personnel, etc.). Between 2009 and 2011, 369 federal prison
security staff members received training at the New Mexico Corrections
Department Training Academy in the United States.58
57 The creation of the National Academy
of Penitentiary Administration (ANAP)
was agreed to during the 23rd
session of the National Council of
Public Safety on June 3, 2010.
58 Public Safety Ministry. “Memoria.” 88..
d. Vulnerability of human rights
Overpopulation and poor prison conditions not only are turning Mexican
penitentiaries into time bombs, but they also are making it impossible
to meet the Constitution’s goal of reintegrating inmates into society.
Under these conditions, convicts’ human rights are vulnerable and
constantly violated.
37
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
Table 15. Rating per state or entity by the National Diagnosis for Penitentiary Supervision (CNDH), 2011
Aspects that
guarantee
integrity
Inmates’
physical
and moral
well-being
Aspects that
guarantee
dignity in
prison
Conditions of
governance
Reintegration
into society of
inmates
Groups of
inmates with
special needs
Rating by
state or entity
National
6.35
6.73
5.84
6.41
6.86
6.41
Aguascalientes
7.96
9.42
8.47
8.43
7.90
8.47
Baja California
5.80
6.09
6.39
7.14
7.53
6.56
Baja California Sur
6.72
7.05
6.44
6.10
7.12
6.61
Campeche
7.33
6.62
6.13
5.22
6.58
6.36
Chiapas
6.33
6.43
6.31
5.79
7.09
6.36
Chihuahua
7.32
8.34
6.97
6.89
6.54
7.08
Coahuila
4.55
5.54
4.68
5.58
4.55
5.21
Colima
6.83
6.67
5.99
6.94
6.94
6.65
Federal District
5.09
6.85
4.59
6.53
7.26
5.99
Durango
7.67
7.84
5.78
5.82
6.13
6.63
Guanajuato
8.35
8.54
7.98
7.70
7.47
7.89
Guerrero
4.92
4.51
4.36
5.28
6.56
5.13
Hidalgo
5.39
7.32
5.97
6.69
6.39
6.37
Jalisco
6.13
8.74
7.01
8.24
7.79
7.54
Mexico state
5.40
5.07
5.59
6.74
6.65
5.89
Michoacán
7.24
6.41
5.19
7.64
7.34
6.77
Morelos
6.93
7.22
5.72
5.84
7.17
6.44
Nayarit
4.27
5.20
4.25
3.35
6.24
4.57
Nuevo León
4.73
5.90
4.74
6.07
7.06
5.77
Oaxaca
5.36
4.21
4.17
5.15
6.84
5.15
Puebla
7.10
7.01
6.87
7.26
7.17
6.99
Querétaro
7.50
8.90
7.66
8.15
6.91
7.79
Quintana Roo
5.83
4.83
3.74
5.55
6.94
5.44
San Luis Potosí
6.84
7.78
6.38
6.02
6.88
6.84
Sinaloa
7.49
4.37
5.57
6.09
7.34
6.14
Sonora
6.64
7.54
6.06
5.88
7.56
6.79
Tabasco
4.32
5.30
5.27
4.19
5.12
4.86
Tamaulipas
6.60
6.22
4.41
5.94
6.28
5.88
Tlaxcala
7.74
8.52
6.32
8.32
8.00
7.80
Veracruz
6.26
7.00
5.33
7.61
7.21
6.60
Yucatán
6.66
6.65
6.29
4.95
6.28
6.13
Zacatecas
7.36
6.34
6.04
6.74
6.88
6.51
State or entity
Source: National Diagnosis for Penitentiary Supervision. National Human Rights Commission. 2011.
Graph 14 presents prison ratings for each state and the Federal District. In
spite of its overcrowding problems, Jalisco has one of the best ratings. Despite
the overcrowding problem in Jalisco prisons, violent incidents are few and no
riots or killings have been reported in recent years.
38
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
4.86
4.57
Nayarit
5
Tabasco
5.15
5.13
Oaxaca
5.77
Nuevo León
Guerrero
5.88
5.21
5.89
Mexico
Tamaulipas
6
5.44
6.13
6.14
Sinaloa
5.99
6.36
Chiapas
Campeche
Yucatán
6.36
Hidalgo
Federal District
6.41
6.37
National
6.44
Morelos
Veracruz
6.56
6.60
Baja California Sur
6.51
6.61
Durango
Zacatecas
6.63
Colima
Baja California
6.77
6.65
Michoacán
6.84
6.79
Sonora
Puebla
7
San Luis Potosí
6.99
Chihuahua
7.54
7.79
7.08
7.80
Tlaxcala
Querétaro
8
7.89
9
Guanajuato
10
8.47
Graph 14. Rating per district or entity by the National Diagnosis for Penitentiary
Supervision (CNDH), 2011
4
3
2
1
Coahuila
Quintana Roo
Jalisco
Aguascalientes
0
Source: National Diagnosis for Penitentiary Supervision. National Human Rights Commission. 2011.
The vulnerability of incarcerated people in Mexico also can be illustrated by the
number of complaints made to organizations that protect human rights and the
recommendations made by the organizations. Eleven percent of the human rights
complaints investigated by human rights commissions are made about prisons.59
Five recommendations had been made this year by the time this report was
published. The first was 12/2013, directed to Mexico state Gov. Eruviel Ávila and
to Manuel Mondragón, the national commissioner of public safety, about a case
where an inmate was tortured, and later died, at the Altiplano federal prison
in Almoloya de Juárez. It is important to remember, nevertheless, that CNDH
recommendations are not binding. The persistence of these lamentable abuses
shows what little effect these recommendations have had in improving living
conditions inside Mexican prisons.
***
As has been extensively documented, living conditions in Mexican jails are
precarious. What purpose do Mexican prisons serve if their conditions are not
creating the necessary climate to reintegrate inmates into society? This situation
of mistreatment makes prison a school for violence and impunity; it generates
social time bombs that translate into more and greater episodes of violence
outside prisons, not to mention the prison riots and confrontations between
inmates linked to rival organized crime groups.
59 Jurimetría figures based on state
human rights commissions’ information
Although the state uses prison as its primary instrument to combat crime, in
reality it has lost control of the institution; the networks of corruption, drug use,
inmate self-governance, and other problems result from the precarious prison living
conditions and overpopulation problems. Thus, prison is far from meeting the goals
of crime prevention and inmates’ rehabilitation or reintegration into society.
39
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
VI. The Cost of the Prevalence of Using
Prison as Punishment
The overuse of prison not only has negative consequences in terms of living
conditions and resultant violence, but also important societal costs.
a. Social cost
Even short stays in prison have important criminogenic effects. On the one
hand, the crime-deterrence incentive of having a clean record is gone. In
addition, ex-convicts have trouble getting hired, and suffer the stigma of having
been in prison. All this increases the probability that ex-convicts will wind up
participating in illegal or criminal activities again. In Mexico, the percentage of
sentences given to recidivists is 15.5 percent (Graph 15).
70
70.8%
71.1%
69.2%
80
72.1%
Graph 15. Condición de reincidencia en sentencias condenatorias en México, 2009-2012
60
50
10
13.7%
15.5%
14.2%
14.7%
14.3%
13.6%
20
16.5%
30
14.3%
40
Non-recidivist (%)
Recidivist (%)
Unknown (%)
2012
2011
2010
2009
0
Source: 2012 Criminal Justice Statistics, INEGI.
In 2012, recidivism made up 17.1 percent of crimes
under state jurisdiction, and 11.1 percent of crimes under
federal jurisdiction. (Criminal Justice Statistics, INEGI).
Some crimes in state jurisdictions register recidivism percentages above 20
percent. This is the case of auto theft (35.3), use and transfer of stolen vehicles
(25.0), and all theft (21.4).60 If we take into account that two of every
five inmates are in prison for theft, these recidivism numbers indicate
that, at least for theft, prison is not satisfactorily meeting its goal of
deterrence or of preparing inmates to reintegrate into society.
On the contrary, serious crimes such as kidnapping (12.6), homicide (10.6)
register smaller recidivism percentages on average. Federal crimes with
recidivism rates that merit attention are the sexual exploitation of minors and
people with reduced capacities, with 20 percent recidivism, criminal organization,
with 16.7 percent, and narcotics violations, 13.4 percent.
60 National Institute of Statistics
and Geography, Criminal Justice
Statistics, 2012.
40
Graph 16. Recidivism as a percentage of Mexican prison sentences, at the state
level, 2012
35.2%
40.0%
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
3.0%
3.0%
Tabasco*
Guerrero*
5.5%
3.8%
Chihuahua*
5.0%
Sinaloa*
6.1%
6.0%
Campeche
Mexico
6.5%
Jalisco*
Chiapas*
7.3%
7.1%
Zacatecas
10.3%
Hidalgo
9.7%
10.4%
8.6%
10.6%
Morelos
Durango
10.0%
Tlaxcala
11.2%
10.6%
Nayarit
Oaxaca
11.4%
Coahuila
Aguascalientes*
13.3%
12.5%
Veracruz
14.2%
13.4%
Querétaro
15.5%
Tamaulipas
14.7%
14.7%
Puebla
14.4%
15.3%
National
Baja California Sur
Quintana Roo
15.5%
Michoacán
San Luis Potosí
17.2%
16.5%
Guanajuato
17.3%
20.0%
Sonora*
21.2%
25.5%
17.8%
30.0%
Baja California
22.8%
30.5%
Nuevo León
Yucatán
Colima
Federal District
0
Source: 2012 Criminal Justice Statistics, INEGI.
* Note: The category of “recidivism not specified” was greater than 20 percent in states marked with an asterisk. Sonora (21.0), Chihuahua (23.9),
Chiapas (39.9), Jalisco (48.9), Aguascalientes (59.2), Guerrero (61.4), Tabasco (67.4), and Sinaloa (67.8).
61 Robertson, Oliver. “The impact
of parental imprisonment on
children.” Geneva: Quaker United
Nations Office, 2007: 9. Web.
<http://quno.org/geneva/pdf/
humanrights/women-in-prison/
ImpactParentalImprisonment200704-English.pdf>.
62 Children of Prisoners: Interventions
and Mitigations to Strengthen
Mental Health. Web.
63 COPING. Children of Prisoners:
Interventions and Mitigations to
Strengthen Mental Health. Web. 2
July 2013. <http://coping-project.
hud.ac.uk/publications/COPING-%20
D01.1_WP1-Survey%20Analysis%20
Results.pdf>.
64 In the United States, there is a
bill of rights for the children of
incarcerated parents. San Francisco
Partnership for Incarcerated
Parents. Children of Incarcerated
Parents: A Bill of Rights. September
2003. Web. <www.fcnetwork.org/
Bill%20of%20Rights/billofrights.pdf>.
2. Prison’s invisible victims
Imprisonment not only affects the inmate but also his or her family.
The CIDE Surveys of the Imprisoned Population show a high percentage of
inmates have children. According to the 2009 survey, in the Federal District
and the State of Mexico, 71 percent of men and 86 percent of women have
children. In the case of federal prisons, the results for 2012 were similar: 79
percent of men and 88 percent of women have children. Between 2 percent and
3 percent of men in Federal District, State of Mexico and federal prisons said
their wives or partners were also incarcerated; 25 percent of the female inmates
said their husbands or partners were in prison. According to organizations such
as the Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO), “The imprisonment of a mother
or a father affects their children, usually in a negative way.”61 In this manner,
children become the invisible and forgotten victims of incarceration.
The COPING project62 , financed by the European Union and based on more than
800 questionnaires, found that around a quarter of the children with a father in
prison were at high risk of having mental health problems—a significantly higher
number than among children in general.63 The government needs to take into
account the rights of children when formulating criminal legislation so that they
are not affected.64
41
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
b. Monetary cost
The constant growth of the penitentiary population is a challenge for the
policies of reintegration and the budgetary capability of the state.
According to the 2012 National Census of Government, Public Safety,
and the Penitentiary System in the States published by INEGI, states
spent 8.658 billion pesos ($670 million) during 2011 on prisons.65
This figure does not include federal prison costs.
If the total cost is divided by the total number of inmates in state and
local prisons (172,615),66 in 2011 each inmate cost around 50,000 pesos
($3,865)67. This is 137.42 pesos ($10.60) daily.
One option to mitigate the monetary cost of prison (which has been a
subject of debate since 2012) in Mexico is private investment in penitentiary
institutions. There are currently private companies68 that have received
concessions to build and maintain prisons, and to provide services such
as food preparation and laundry operations. According to the now-extinct
Public Safety Ministry (SSP), this could provide a savings of 29 percent69;
however, there is no strong evidence or convincing arguments to back up
this projection.
***
Prisons represent a high societal and economic cost. Prison stays have
considerable effects on the future prospects of convicts, even if they are
imprisoned for just a short time. Their work possibilities upon leaving prison
shrink and their chances of returning to their previous life of crime expand.
Why should we imprison people who commit non-serious crimes and why
should we spend money to keep them in prison for treatment that will not
result in their full reintegration into society, and that, on the contrary, has
important negative consequences for the inmates and their families? It
would be worthwhile to explore penalties other than incarceration, such as
fines and community service.
65 INEGI found (in Tabulation 3.9) that
the budget for state penitentiaries—
excluding federal prisons—was
8,658,100,000 pesos, broken into
the following categories: 4.7 billion
(365 million) for personnel; 2.4
billion ($186 million) for materials
and supplies; 741 million ($57
million) for general services; 121.5
million ($9.4 million) in subsidies
and transfers; 279.1 million ($21.6
million) for acquisition of movable
and real property; 59.75 million
($4.6 million) for public works; and
314.38 million ($24.3 million) for
other expenses.
66 See Tabulation 3.5 of the 2012
National Census of Government,
Public Safety and the Penitentiary
System in the States, INEGI.
67 The exact number is 50,158.42 pesos.
68 In 2012, concessions were granted
to the following companies:
ICA, Tradeco, GIA, Homex,
Prodemex, and Arendal. See: “The
privatization of the prison system
in Mexico.” Nexos: Editorial blog.
Web. <http://redaccion.nexos.com.
mx/?p=3921>.
69 “IP [Private Sector] will save
29% in the operation of SSP
penitentiaries.”Obrasweb, 2
Feb. 2012. Web. 6 Aug. 2013.
<http://www.obrasweb.mx/
construccion/2012/02/02/la-ipahorrara-29-en-la-operacion-depenales-a-la-ssp>.
42
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
VII. How Can the Way Prisons Are Used
Be Transformed?
Undeniably, one option to end overcrowding
in Mexican prisons is to build more jails.
Nevertheless, this is not sustainable, for at least
three reasons. First, it would only be a temporary
solution, because if current crime patterns and
judicial processes continue, in a few years prisons
would be overpopulated again. Second, prisons
have very high direct costs, including their
construction and operation as well as the daily
upkeep of the inmates. Third, prison has important
indirect costs, such as the negative consequences
incarceration has for inmates’ relatives and the
general community.70 For these reasons, it is
essential to seek alternatives to prison.
The above, along with this report’s previous explanation
of how small sentences have criminogenic effects on
inmates, shows why society should make incarceration
a punishment of last resort for nonviolent minor crime.
a. Public policy recommendations on how to
transform the use of prison in Mexico
1. A deep overhaul of the penal code to eliminate
incarceration as a punishment for some crimes
It is important to note that the penal reform that has been
in process since 2008 has not been accompanied by an
overhaul in sentencing guidelines or penal code statutes.
70 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Handbook of
basic principles and promising practices on Alternatives to
Imprisonment. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and
Crime, 2010: 5. Web.
71 UNODC, Handbook. 6.
72 Zepeda Lecuona, Guillermo Raúl. ¿Cuánto cuesta la prisión sin
condena? (How Much Does Prison Without Conviction Cost?:
Economic and social costs of pretrial detention in Mexico).
Monterrey: Open Society Institute, 2010.
2. Development of alternatives, both legal and
organizational, to prison
As the UNODC explains, “The reality is that most
of the objectives of imprisonment can be met more
effectively in other ways,” such as community service
and fines, among others.71 It is necessary to develop
alternatives such as community-based treatment
programs and stays of proceedings. These changes
must be accompanied by budget allocations and
personnel to work with those released and ensure
they receive their services, make their restitution
payments, and fulfill the conditions of their release
and their treatment.
3. Prudent use of pretrial detention
As has been shown, pretrial detention is used
intensively in the Mexican criminal justice
system. A prudent use of pretrial detention has
the potential to reduce the pressure on prisons.
It is estimated that a suitable use of pretrial
detention would reduce its use 40 percent,
without putting at risk the repayment of damages
or the safety of the victim and society. 72 If 41
percent of the prison population today is in pretrial
detention or has not been sentenced, such new policies
could reduce the penitentiary population at least 16
percent—enough to end the system’s overpopulation
and overcrowding problem.
4. To improve and institutionalize reintegration
programs and techniques.
It is important to systematize activities in the areas
of health, sport, education, and work based on
progressive treatment. In addition, once the inmate
leaves prison, the reentry process should be monitored
and evaluated. Checks should be made to ensure that
individuals who leave prison don’t break the law again,
that they get legitimate work, avoid having contract
with criminal groups, have a good relationship with
their family members and loved ones, and stay away
from prohibited substances such as drugs, among
other things.
43
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
5. To conduct a review of the National Penitentiary System infrastructure
Prisons can be reconditioned, optimized, expanded, adapted, and modernized.
Calderón’s 2006-2012 administration opted to build eight federal penitentiary
centers73 with the goal of having enough federal prison space for the everincreasing number of inmates who commit federal crimes.74 Peña Nieto’s
administration plans to build 10 more maximum-security prisons. However, if
prisons are more suitably used, the construction of additions or new
penitentiaries might not be necessary or only necessary in places with
high prison occupancy and other issues related to the makeup of the
prison population.
6. The professionalization of administrative, technical, and guard personnel
A master plan of professionalization should be designed to develop the
characteristics of prison jobs, generate the profiles of who should occupy them,
and serve as a guide for personnel training and specialization.
***
Transforming the reality of prison is an ethical imperative and a
humanitarian emergency that we cannot ignore.
73 Zepeda Lecuona, Guillermo
Raúl. “Diagnóstico del sistema
penitenciario mexicano”
(Assessment of the Mexican
Penitentiary System). La
transformación del Sistema
Penitenciario Federal: una visión
de estado (The transformation
of the Federal Penitentiary
System: A state View). Antonio
Sánchez Galindo, coordinator.
Mexico: Centro de Investigación
y Estudios de Seguridad,
SSP (Center for Public Safety
Research and Studies, Public
Safety Ministry), 2012: 42. Web.
<http://investigacionpolitica.
iteso.mx/wp-content/
uploads/2013/02/SISTEMA_
PENITENCIARIO-SSP.pdf>.
74 Initially, the project called for the
construction of twelve penitentiary
centers. The centers are in Chiapas,
Coahuila, Durango, Guanajuato,
Michoacán, Morelos, Oaxaca,
and Sonora. See: “In six months
eight ‘super-penitentiaries’ will be
finished.” Milenio. 2 July 2012. Web.
2 July 2013. <http://www.milenio.
com/cdb/doc/impreso/9108673>.
b. The New Adversarial Criminal Justice System
The New Adversarial Criminal Justice System is an example of a
more rational use of the extreme punishment of prison in Mexico.
Traffic accidents, minor conflicts, and some nonviolent property crimes are
being channeled to alternative forms of justice. This allows the victim to be
indemnified, where agreements are made to repair harm, or conditions that
must be satisfied by the accused are set. This has meant that property damage
and minor crimes no longer are resolved through prison sentences, but rather
through an alternative process or a stay of proceedings. The purpose of such a
system is to only bring to trial cases involving violent crimes or those in which
the parties involved could not agree to an alternative resolution.
The constitutional reform of June 2008 changed the parameters for pretrial
detention. It sets conditions that must be argued before a judge by the parties
involved; compulsory pretrial detention is limited to a few crimes, as is what
is known as informal pretrial detention. The new pretrial detention regime is
envisaged in the second paragraph of Article 19 of the Constitution.
The putting into practice of this constitutional regime in state and federal
jurisdictions is beginning to show results.
The new adversarial criminal justice system already operates in 12 states. It
operates statewide only in Chihuahua, Morelos, and the State of Mexico; in
the other nine states, it is being phased in by regions and by crimes and other
criminal matters. The results are beginning to be seen. States where the new
system is progressing are seeing pressures on their prisons lowered.
44
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
Table 16. Population in pretrial detention, by crime, in states using the new adversarial criminal justice system,
2005-2013
Baja California
Chihuahua*
Durango
Mexico*
Morelos*
Oaxaca
Zacatecas
National
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
5,987
7,360
8,307
7,340
6,205
5,709
4,574
4,618
5,669
57.12%
58.27%
60.19%
53.32%
47.08
44.88%
37.77%
37.23%
41.47%
2,074
2,024
1,959
1,304
1,242
1,707
2,353
2,680
3,549
44.41%
43.93%
42.15%
33.67%
33.82%
42.73%
47.46%
46.74%
49.52%
1,136
1,395
1,504
1,388
1,241
866
948
800
1383
54.43%
60.65%
61.36%
56.19%
54.69%
57.35%
49.12%
42.08%
64.30%
6,989
7,384
7,315
6,680
6,847
6,884
5,813
5,471
5,283
43.61%
42.71%
44.52%
40.53%
40.91%
40.44%
34.70%
32.73%
31.65%
1,218
1,222
1,139
1,224
1,079
914
967
800
847
49.11%
46.77%
43.44%
47.26%
42.75%
35.09%
35.67%
30.46%
32.24%
1,927
2,053
1,868
1,931
1,675
1,791
2,084
2,293
2,339
49.45%
50.72%
51.33%
54.04%
48.38%
51.84%
56.46%
58.58%
61.02%
363
358
345
345
304
283
281
323
359
41.97%
37.18%
32.89%
33.01%
32.14%
30.93%
31.02%
35.61%
39.23%
69,762
71,553
70,718
69,562
70,222
71,710
76,195
72,187
75,069
45.20%
44.46%
43.05%
40.96%
40.50%
40.25%
41.27%
38.55%
39.24%
Source: Adapted from information from the Public Safety Ministry. 2005 to 2007 statistical annexes from federal government reports, with information
from the Public Safety Ministry. 2008 to 2013, monthly notebooks of penitentiary statistics, Decentralized Agency for Prevention and Readjustment into
Society, Public Safety Ministry.
Note: The years the new system has operated in are shown in red.
* States where the new system operates statewide.
As seen in Table 16, in states using the new criminal justice system, the general
tendency is to use less pretrial detention.
In Oaxaca, where the system operates in three of its eight regions, there has
been an increase in pretrial detention well above the national average. However,
it is important to note that in the two regions that have been using the new
criminal justice system for more than four years— the Mixtec Region and the
Isthmus—the reduction of the phenomenon is quite significant, on the order of
50 percent. In 2008, 40 percent of the prison population in those regions was
in pretrial detention. In 2011, this figure fell to 23 percent. However, in the
regions where the new system is not in place, a little more than 50 percent of
the inmates are in pretrial detention.75 One state, but two different systems of
criminal justice.
75 Based on information from the
Public Safety Ministry.
76 Zepeda Lecuona, Guillermo Raúl.
Informe General: Proyecto de
Seguimiento de los Procesos de
Implementación de la Reforma
Penal en México (General
Report: Follow-up Project on
Implementation Procedures of the
Criminal Justice Reform in Mexico).
Mexico: Secretaría Técnica del
Consejo de Coordinación para la
Implementación del Sistema de
Justicia Penal (Technical Secretariat
of the Coordinating Council for the
Implementation of the Criminal
Justice System), USAID, and Justice
Studies Center of the Americas,
2012:143.
In general, reducing the use of prison as a penalty and as a precautionary
measure has lowered, in most cases, pressures on prisons. As seen in
Table 17, the most notable case is of Baja California—which has the secondmost overloaded penitentiary system in the country, behind only the Federal
District. Although the new system of justice is operating in only one of the four
districts of the state (Mexicali), the State System of Alternative Criminal Justice
(SEJAP) operates in the entire state; this has meant that people accused of
minor crimes no longer are being put in pretrial detention. As a result, Baja
California’s penitentiary system no longer is in the critical state of overpopulation
it was in eight years ago. In other states such as Mexico state and Morelos, the
pressures on the system have not dropped significantly, mainly because the
entire potential of alternative justice and stays of proceedings has not been put
into place.76
45
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
Table 17. Percentage of prison population in states using the new adversarial criminal justice system, 2005-2013
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Baja California
168%
185%
188%
186%
181.20%
117%
115%
111%
109%
Chihuahua*
128%
124%
113%
108%
108%
94%
92%
109%
134%
Durango
108%
112%
111%
110%
93%
70%
69%
76%
95%
Mexico*
184%
190%
183%
184%
189%
178%
176%
174%
170%
Morelos*
128%
132%
171%
169%
170%
157%
157%
162%
154%
Oaxaca
93%
85%
79%
83%
91%
93%
98%
99%
95%
Zacatecas
79%
77%
76%
76%
69%
51%
52%
54%
46%
129%
127%
128%
132%
134%
125%
123%
126%
129%
National
Source: Adapted from information from the Public Safety Ministry. 2005 to 2007 statistical annexes from
federal government reports, with information from the Public Safety Ministry. 2008 to 2013, monthly
notebooks of penitentiary statistics, Decentralized Agency for Prevention and Readjustment into Society,
Public Safety Ministry.
Note: The years the new system has operated in are shown in red.
* States where the new system operates statewide.
c. The European model versus the North American model
Changes such as those proposed earlier are not unattainable.
The case of Finland clearly shows how the use of prison can be transformed
through reforms. The size of the Finnish penitentiary system is much smaller
than Mexico’s, but during the 1950s, Finland also misused its prisons. In those
years, Finland’s incarceration rate was very similar to Mexico’s today. Between
1960 and 1970, the rate was reduced slightly but continued to be high in
comparison with its neighboring countries; the rate was around 150 inmates
per 100,000 inhabitants. Today, this number is around 70. What happened? The
penitentiary system ceased to be seen as an instrument of deterrence or aimed
at the elimination of crime. Prison became a method directed at minimizing the
costs and injurious effects of crime.77
The criminal justice system in the United States shows the opposite. Its
incarceration rate stayed stable from at least 1925 to the 1970s. From then and
until at least 2000, its incarceration rate showed a sustained and accelerated
growth. At the beginning of the 21st century, its incarceration rate per 100,000
inhabitants was more than four times higher than the average rate it had
until the 1970s. This phenomenon is explained, partly, by increasingly harderline policies against victimless crimes—such as drug use—and the imposition
of ever-longer sentences in state penal codes. As a result of these new state
laws, people who committed minor thefts received longer prison sentences.78
Nevertheless, as seen in the case of California, there is no evidence showing
that tougher sentencing laws reduce crime.
77 Lappi-Seppäla, Tapio. “Penal Policy
in Scandinavia.” Crime and Justice
36.1, (2007): 217-231.
78 Zimring, Franklin E. “Penal Policy
and Penal Legislation in Recent
American Experience.” Stanford
Law Review 58.1 (2005): 323-338.
46
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
VIII. Conclusions
Prison is just one of many instruments the state has
at its disposal to punish lawbreakers. In practice,
however, prison seems to be the only instrument
that gets used in Mexico.
The use of prison as a punishment in Mexico has been
abused. Far from being a punishment only for those
individuals who present a potential threat to society,
prison has become the easy way for authorities to fight
crime, paying no regard to its type or character. That is
what the data in this report suggests.
In Mexico, 96.4 percent of the people who are convicted
go to jail; the other 3.6 percent are fined or ordered to
pay restitution. In addition, 41.3 percent of the people in
prison are awaiting trial or a ruling. This abuse of prisons
has caused a serious overpopulation problem in Mexico’s
penitentiaries. Little by little, this has caused a reduction in
the services covering the prison population, and a lack of
adequate facilities for the psychotherapeutic and educational
activities key to the prisoners’ reintegration into society.
Another relevant point is the type of sentences that wind
up being served; most are for misdemeanors. Thus, prison,
far from improving the law-and-order situation, has had the
complete opposite effect. Someone who is jailed for petty
theft will gain his freedom after three years (or less) but
will face difficulties finding a job as a result of the stigma of
having been in prison. In addition, the criminogenic effect
of prisons means that the inmate very well could end up
committing crimes that are more serious in nature.
Reentry into society from Mexico’s prisons is poorly carried
out; indeed, the skills inmates learn most easily are those
associated with additional criminal or violent conduct. Thus,
when inmates are released, the possibility that they will fall
into recidivism or be recruited by criminal groups grows.
Thus, prison represents a high social and economic cost that
does not translate into a process of successful reintegration.
Reforms to the penitentiary system are urgently
needed to curtail the growth of the prison
population and reduce associated consequences.
Among other things, the penalty system needs to
be rethought in order to make prison a punishment
of last resort. A first step is to undertake a major
overhaul of our penal legislation and to eliminate
prison sentences for some non-serious crimes. Also,
the system needs to develop punishments that do not
involve incarceration such as community service and
fines, among other things.
Given the complex security situation the country
has been living through in recent years, in which the
better part of the population lives amid organized
crime rivalry and faces high levels of high-impact
crimes such as murder, kidnapping, and extortion, it
is understandable that society is on the defensive,
incredulous of institutions, and seeking a punishment
that serves as a public example—prison—for any
offender, through retributive justice. It behooves us
to reflect on the evidence presented in this report in
order to understand that the ends that society seeks
to protect and give priority to not only are not being
met by the penitentiary system, but are actually
endangered by it. What society attempts to punish,
and avoid, using prison can turn against it in the
medium term if the present inertia in the penitentiary
system continues and Mexico does not learn from the
experiences of other countries.
What are our jails for if we mete out similar punishments
to people who commit a nonviolent theft and people
who commit first-degree murder? Why do we use jails in
Mexico if prison conditions are not creating the necessary
climate to reintegrate inmates into society? What good
are Mexican prisons if most of those who serve sentences
of less than three years for minor crimes could easily
merit alternative punishment?
It is time to transform the reality of prison in Mexico.
47
Prisons in Mexico: What for?
Acronyms
ANAP:
National academy of Penitentiary Administration
Cefereso:
Federal center of Social Readjustment
CEJA:
Justice Studies Center of the Americas
CNGSPSPE:
National Census of Government, Public Safety and the Penitentiary System in the States (INEGI)
Cereso:
Center of Social Readjustment
CIDE:
Center for Research and the Teaching of Economics
CNDH:
National Human Rights Commission
CNS:
National Safety Commission
COPING:
Children of Prisoners: Interventions and Mitigations to Strengthen Mental Health
DNSP:
National Diagnosis for Penitentiary Supervision
EJMP: Criminal Justice Statistics (INEGI)
INEGI:
National Institute of Statistics and Geography
OADPRS:
Decentralized Agency for Prevention and Social Readjustment
QUNO:
Quaker United Nations Office
SEJAP:
State system of Alternative Criminal Justice
SSP:
Public Safety Ministry
UNODC: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
USAID:
U.S. Agency for International Development
México Evalúa, 2013
www.mexicoevalua.org
* Translation into English has been sponsored by the Center for U.S. Mexican Studies at UCSD.