32

While reading this Travel SE question, an answer cited this website about Mexican gun laws which states the following (emphasis mine):

Remember, once you cross the border with a firearm or ammunition it is too late! Ignorance of this law will not get you leniency from the police. You will be arrested and sent to jail. Also, the Mexican judicial system is governed by Napoleonic Law which states that you are presumed guilty and must prove your innocence, the opposite of the U.S. laws.

The American consulate in Tijuana, Mexico also posts a similar warning on their official website (emphasis theirs):

Mexico's civil law system is derived primarily from Roman law and the Napoleonic Code and focuses more on the text of actual laws than on prior court decisions. [...] For an accused person, one of the most critical differences is that under Mexican criminal law, the accused is essentially considered guilty until proven innocent.

Is it true that one is guilty until proven innocent in Mexico? Does this have anything to do with Napoleonic law?

Community
  • 1
March Ho
  • 18,688
  • 12
  • 81
  • 109
  • 4
    is the american consulate not an accurate source, or rather is there a reason we would be skeptical of the wording by the consulate? It is essentially the consulates job to look out for american citizens in mexico. – Himarm Aug 19 '15 at 13:19
  • 20
    Mexico is a signatory of the Universal Declaration on human rights which requires that one be presumed innocent. – March Ho Aug 19 '15 at 13:23
  • This article says major legal system chances will take effect in 2016: http://www.pbs.org/pov/presumedguilty/background.php – DavePhD Aug 19 '15 at 13:24
  • @MarchHo it appears most countries ignore that universal declaration on human rights, and with how corrupt mexico is i wouldn't doubt it either. – Himarm Aug 19 '15 at 13:26
  • 5
    @DavePhD: Note how that article qualifies the statement with "in practice" (and actually, the text from the consulate in Tijuana also qualifies the statement with "essentially"). Like this, the statement moves from an absolute fact that is somehow based on a concrete legal rule to something that might just as well be an alarmist interpretation. In particular, note how the consulate's text first states "essentially guilty until proven innocent", and then continues to explain (?) this by pointing out that bailing people out of investigative custody is more complicated and that some things ... – O. R. Mapper Aug 19 '15 at 13:32
  • 1
    ... that are legal in the U.S. *may* (sic!) be illegal in Mexico. Furthermore, the text goes on to explain that in Mexico, it is rather the judge that decides on a sentence, not a jury ... which is the same in various other Western countries whose criminal code adheres to a principle of the presumption of innocence nonetheless. And with that in mind, note that the article you linked to describes that investigative methods of the Mexican police might be inaccurate and sloppy, but that is still not the same as blindly assuming guilt unless evidence for the contrary is presented. – O. R. Mapper Aug 19 '15 at 13:34
  • 6
    @MarchHo: Well, the USA signed that declaration as well, and you're presumed innocent until proven guilty in trial there -- *unless* you're accused of being a terrorist, in which case you're just left incarcerated and interrogated somewhere for years without a fair and public trial. Not to diss the USA specifically, it's just another prominent example of signatory states ignoring the UDoHR at their convenience. – DevSolar Aug 19 '15 at 16:18
  • 2
    FWIW, in the US, not all crimes are treated as innocent-until-proven-guilty. Copyright violations (and to some extent, patent infringement) are treated as guilty-until-proven-innocent. That is, the defendant must provide proof that no violation/infringement happened otherwise the court automatically decides for the plaintiff. – slebetman Aug 19 '15 at 18:13
  • 3
    @slebetman: 1. You're talking about civil, not criminal, offenses, which are not usually called "crimes." 2. Citation? If you show up in court, usually even in civil matters the burden is on the plaintiff. The standard is lower ("preponderance of evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt"), but the burden remains on the plaintiff, not the respondent (respondent = the person who would be the "defendant" in a criminal proceeding). *Not showing up* can lead to summary judgement, absolutely, because you've made no defence. That's a different thing entirely. – T.J. Crowder Aug 19 '15 at 22:35
  • @T.J.Crowder: Speeding ticket is another example. The difference with copyright violations and speeding ticket is that the case is brought to court already based on evidence. By the time the defendant gets to argue his case the court has already accepted the evidence. It's up to the defendant to prove the evidence wrong (there was a case of a physicist proving that the radar gun overestimated his speed because it got the vectors wrong due to the position of the cop). In contrast, a prosecutor needs to prove a murder was committed by the defendant. – slebetman Aug 20 '15 at 02:21
  • 4
    @slebetman: And now we're back to criminal, not civil. That's not a presumption of guilt. The prosecution always makes its case first. *If* the court gets the evidence in advance, that's just...the court getting the evidence in advance. The evidence still has to prove that you were speeding. Absent evidence, there's no case to answer. (That happens: You say "I want a court date," the date comes up, the cop is busy and can't attend; automatic acquittal.) Even if the cop turns up and testifies (testimony is evidence), without supporting evidence (logs from radar gun, etc.), it's an acquittal. – T.J. Crowder Aug 20 '15 at 05:13
  • @slebetman In many jurisdictions speeding tickets are now classified as civil matters as well, unless you get into the reckless speeding area. – Andy Oct 01 '15 at 22:56

1 Answers1

31

Yes but it is being changed.

There were a few well-publicized cases which caused public outrage and prompted changes.

http://www.pbs.org/pov/presumedguilty/responses_weisselberg.php

Mexico is poised to change its criminal justice system from one that presumes guilt at trial to one that presumes innocence, effective 2016. If this reform is implemented and the new presumption of innocence is taken seriously, it should lead to important changes in police practices and trial procedures that could prevent miscarriages of justice like the one depicted in the documentary. While one can think of other reforms that would improve the integrity of Mexico's criminal justice system, this single change has the potential to accomplish much.

~Charles D. Weisselberg, Shannon C. Turner Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law

EDIT: O.R.Mapper points out that the mexican constitution was amended in 2008 "protecting the innocents" though in the context I'm not certain if that implies a right to presumption of innocence or if there's just some lag implementing it.

Murphy
  • 9,486
  • 1
  • 47
  • 45
  • 11
    I suppose one needs to decide between the letter and the implementation of the respective laws, and maybe the question is a bit unclear in that respect. For instance, the [Mexican Constitution](http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/htm/1.htm) (from 1917, last revised in 2015) declares basic principles for trials such as "protection of the innocent" being one of the objectives of a criminal case, "prosecution has the burden of proof to show that the accused is guilty" in court, and "the judge will only convict [the accused] if he or she is convinced that the accused is guilty". – O. R. Mapper Aug 19 '15 at 14:07
  • Any more recent links on this? This is from 2010... – user541686 Aug 20 '15 at 06:03
  • @Mehrdad: Well, the secondary source from 2010 cited in this answer seems to be contradicted by the primary source I cited that has been valid since 1917 and is still valid in 2015 (even though that primary source might of course be overridden by more specific primary sources). I hope someone with more insight into the Mexican legal system (well, preferrably, someone from Mexico?) will be able to clear this up. – O. R. Mapper Aug 20 '15 at 06:55
  • @O.R.Mapper Searching for "innocent" or "innocence" in the english translation http://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/mex/en_mex-int-text-const.pdf yields no results. What section is your "protection of the innocent" quote from? – Murphy Aug 20 '15 at 10:42
  • @Murphy: Article 20, item I says: "El proceso penal tendrá por objeto el esclarecimiento de los hechos, **proteger al inocente,** procurar que el culpable no quede impune y que los daños causados por el delito se reparen;" (emphasis by myself), which means: "The objective of the penal process is getting a clear idea of the facts, **protecting the innocents,** ensuring that the guilty does not remain unpunished, and that damages caused by the crime are repaired." The other two quotes I was referring to are from items V and VIII of the same article. I hope I did find the right document :S – O. R. Mapper Aug 20 '15 at 10:48
  • @Murphy: Note that the page you linked to also has a [Spanish version of the constitution last updated in 2008](http://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/sp/mex/sp_mex-int-text-const.pdf) that already contains the respective text about innocents. On the other hand, the English translation you linked to seems to be very close to (or identical to?) the [*unamended* version of the Mexican constitution from 1917](http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/infjur/leg/conshist/pdf/1917.pdf). ... – O. R. Mapper Aug 20 '15 at 10:58
  • ... Based on what is written [here](http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/ref/dof/CPEUM_ref_180_18jun08.pdf), the respective changes were indeed incorporated into the Mexican constitution in 2008. – O. R. Mapper Aug 20 '15 at 11:02
  • @O.R.Mapper Ah, fair enough, thanks for the update. Any idea if the lag is just organizational lag? I know there can sometimes be years between constitutional amendments in my home country and laws actually being updated to match them. I'll add the info to the answer. – Murphy Aug 20 '15 at 11:15
  • @O.R.Mapper It may be more clear in spanish but does "protecting the innocents" definitely imply presumption of innocence or could it mean protecting victims and other non-accused people, for example could it instead imply a duty to confine people accused of murder so they can't hurt innocent people? – Murphy Aug 20 '15 at 11:21
  • 1
    @Murphy: No, that is rather an implicit statement; I would put more weight on the statements from item V, which says that the burden of proof is with the prosecution (in a pure guilty-unless-proven-innocent system (let's call it "GUPI"), no proof would be required for establishing guilt), and item VIII, which says that the judge will only convict the accused if the judge is convinced that the accused is guilty (in a GUPI system, that statement would be nonsensical, as the accused would be guilty by definition - nothing that would require any convincing). – O. R. Mapper Aug 20 '15 at 11:32
  • @Murphy: Concerning the lag, I have no idea. I do not have the slightest insight of the Mexican legal system, and I have only been to Mexico once for holidays, many years ago, at which point I did not get in touch with any law enforcement there. – O. R. Mapper Aug 20 '15 at 11:34