Marco evolutivo y situación general de la prisión preventiva en México

In general, Latin America has had serious problems with the detention of persons awaiting trial, which represented more than 68% of prisoners in the eighties and currently in our country rounds about 40%. The violations of the human rights of these detainees are manifest; as the pretrial detention,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Villarreal Palos, Arturo
Format: Article
Language:Spanish
Published: 2016
Subjects:
Online Access:https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6622385
Source:Dikê: Revista de Investigación en Derecho, Criminología y Consultoría Jurídica, ISSN 1870-6924, Nº. 19, 2016, pags. 5-27
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
id
dialnet-ar-18-ART0001291673
record_format
dialnet
institution
Dialnet
collection
Dialnet AR
source
Dikê: Revista de Investigación en Derecho, Criminología y Consultoría Jurídica, ISSN 1870-6924, Nº. 19, 2016, pags. 5-27
language
Spanish
topic
Reforma penal
prisión preventiva
México
Criminal Reform
Preventive Prison
Mexico
spellingShingle
Reforma penal
prisión preventiva
México
Criminal Reform
Preventive Prison
Mexico
Villarreal Palos, Arturo
Marco evolutivo y situación general de la prisión preventiva en México
description
In general, Latin America has had serious problems with the detention of persons awaiting trial, which represented more than 68% of prisoners in the eighties and currently in our country rounds about 40%. The violations of the human rights of these detainees are manifest; as the pretrial detention, by its generality and duration, is a sort of punishment in advance, contrary to its nature as a precautionary measure. This article makes an analysis of pretrial detention in Mexico, starting with the established paradigm on the basis of the Constitution of 1917 and the new one that derives from the constitutional reform of June 2008, which for the first time establishes its subsidiary and exceptional character. The author believes that these reforms can contribute significantly to reduce pretrial detention in our country in the medium term, as it is evidenced by the development of penal reform in Latin America and the current emerging followup studies of Criminal transformation in Mexico. It is concluded that the European experience has demonstrated that it is feasible to achieve significant reductions between 10 and 20% of prisoners in preventive detention and to those standards it should be aimed.
format
Article
author
Villarreal Palos, Arturo
author_facet
Villarreal Palos, Arturo
author_sort
Villarreal Palos, Arturo
title
Marco evolutivo y situación general de la prisión preventiva en México
title_short
Marco evolutivo y situación general de la prisión preventiva en México
title_full
Marco evolutivo y situación general de la prisión preventiva en México
title_fullStr
Marco evolutivo y situación general de la prisión preventiva en México
title_full_unstemmed
Marco evolutivo y situación general de la prisión preventiva en México
title_sort
marco evolutivo y situación general de la prisión preventiva en méxico
publishDate
2016
url
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6622385
_version_
1709748001173405696
spelling
dialnet-ar-18-ART00012916732018-10-31Marco evolutivo y situación general de la prisión preventiva en MéxicoVillarreal Palos, ArturoReforma penalprisión preventivaMéxicoCriminal ReformPreventive PrisonMexicoIn general, Latin America has had serious problems with the detention of persons awaiting trial, which represented more than 68% of prisoners in the eighties and currently in our country rounds about 40%. The violations of the human rights of these detainees are manifest; as the pretrial detention, by its generality and duration, is a sort of punishment in advance, contrary to its nature as a precautionary measure. This article makes an analysis of pretrial detention in Mexico, starting with the established paradigm on the basis of the Constitution of 1917 and the new one that derives from the constitutional reform of June 2008, which for the first time establishes its subsidiary and exceptional character. The author believes that these reforms can contribute significantly to reduce pretrial detention in our country in the medium term, as it is evidenced by the development of penal reform in Latin America and the current emerging followup studies of Criminal transformation in Mexico. It is concluded that the European experience has demonstrated that it is feasible to achieve significant reductions between 10 and 20% of prisoners in preventive detention and to those standards it should be aimed.En lo general, América Latina ha tenido un problema grave con el encarcelamiento de personas en espera de juicio, mismo que en los años ochenta del siglo pasado representó más del 68% de los reclusos y en nuestro país ronda en la actualidad alrededor del 40%. Las violaciones a los derechos humanos de estos detenidos son manifiestas, en tanto la prisión preventiva, por su generalidad y duración, se constituye en una suerte de pena anticipada, contraviniendo su naturaleza de medida cautelar. El presente trabajo realiza un análisis de la prisión preventiva en México, iniciando con el paradigma establecido a partir de la Constitución de 1917 y el nuevo que deriva de la reforma constitucional de junio de 2008, el cual, por primera vez establece su carácter subsidiario y excepcional. El autor estima que estas reformas pueden contribuir de manera muy importante a reducir la prisión preventiva en nuestro país en el mediano plazo, pues así lo evidencia el desarrollo de la reforma penal en latinoamericana y los, ahora, incipientes estudios de seguimiento a la transformación penal en México. Se concluye que la experiencia europea ha demostrado que es factible lograr reducciones significativas de entre el 10 y el 20% de presos en prisión preventiva y que a esos estándares se debe aspirar.2016text (article)application/pdfhttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6622385(Revista) ISSN 1870-6924Dikê: Revista de Investigación en Derecho, Criminología y Consultoría Jurídica, ISSN 1870-6924, Nº. 19, 2016, pags. 5-27spaLICENCIA DE USO: Los documentos a texto completo incluidos en Dialnet son de acceso libre y propiedad de sus autores y/o editores. Por tanto, cualquier acto de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y/o transformación total o parcial requiere el consentimiento expreso y escrito de aquéllos. Cualquier enlace al texto completo de estos documentos deberá hacerse a través de la URL oficial de éstos en Dialnet. Más información: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STATEMENT: Full text documents hosted by Dialnet are protected by copyright and/or related rights. This digital object is accessible without charge, but its use is subject to the licensing conditions set by its authors or editors. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the licensing conditions, you are free to linking, browsing, printing and making a copy for your own personal purposes. All other acts of reproduction and communication to the public are subject to the licensing conditions expressed by editors and authors and require consent from them. Any link to this document should be made using its official URL in Dialnet. More info: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI