Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Authorizing state crime in Mexico: the importance of a destructive social milieu

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This essay seeks to specify some of the social–psychological determinants that led to the mobilization of deadly state crime in the Latin American authoritarian state context. The Mexican case provides an interesting case in which to specify some of these determinants because hundreds of leftist political party militants, often engaged in legal activities, have been gunned down by state agents (the police, the military, local politicians associated with the dominant party-state) or indirectly by hired guns on behalf of state leaders Schatz. S. (Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 23:255–295, 2001). I argue, in the Mexican case, the leadership authorization of destructive behavior was the critical activating historical condition activating deadly state crime because it created a permissive social milieu that allows for the utilization of more extreme forms of violence including the use of political assassination as a mode of social control. This permissive social milieu was, of course, aided by a passive legal system that generated the almost complete lack of penalties for state-sanctioned brutality. While none of these determinants alone may be sufficient to produce a wave of political–electoral homicides, when they all combine, it makes such destructive behavior very likely to occur.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Astorga, L. (2000). Organized crime and the organization of crime. In J. Bailey & R. Godson (Eds.), Organized crime and democratic governance (pp. 58–82). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bailey, J., & Godson, R. (Eds.) (2000). Organized crime and democratic governance (Introduction, pp. 1–32). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

  3. Banco Internacional (1999). Trends and empirical causes of violent crimes in Mexico (Final Report), October, pp. 1–73.

  4. Barak, G. (2000). Varieties of state crime and its control (Foreword). Jeffrey Ian Ross, NY: Criminal Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barberán, J., Cárdenas, C., López Monjardín, A., & Zavala, J. (1988). Radiografia del fraude: Analisis de los datos oficiales del 6 de julio. Mexico: Nuestro Tiempo.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Evil: Inside human cruelty and violence. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Carpizo, J. (1978). El presidencialismo en Mexico. Mexico: Siglo Veintiuno.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Castañón, E., & Alba, T. (1993). Guerrero: Transición democrática, obstáculos y perspectivas. In Elecciones y Partidos Políticos en Mexico (pp. 53–61). Mexico City: CIDE–Universidad Autonóma Metropolitana.

  9. Centeno, M. A. (1994). Democracy within reason: Technocratic revolution in Mexico. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chevigny, P. (1999). Defining the role of the police in Latin America. In J. E. Medenz, G. O’Donnell & P. S. Pinheiro (Eds.), The (Un)rule of law and the underprivileged in Latin America (pp. 49–70).

  11. CHR (1994). Un sexenio de violencia política. Mexico City: Comision de Derechos Humanos, Grupo Parlamentario del PRD.

  12. Comisión de Derechos Humanos, Grupo Parlamentario (1992). La Violencia Política en Mexico: un asunto de Derechos Humanos. Mexico City, Mexico: Comisión de Derechos Humanos, Grupo Parlamentario.

  13. Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos (CNDH) (1994). Informe de la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos sobre las 140 quejas presentadas por el Partido de la Revolución Democrática. Mexico City: CNDH.

  14. CNDH (2001). National Human Rights Commission report on the disappeared. Mexico City, Mexico: CNDH.

  15. Cohen, S. (2001). States of denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cornelius, W. A. (1996). Mexican politics in transition: The breakdown of a one-party-dominant regime. Center for US–Mexican Studies, La Jolla, CA: University of California San Diego, Monograph 41.

  17. Crónica de la Violencia Política (1997). Puebla. Fundación Ovando y Gil, Secretaría de Derechos Humanos del Partido del Revolución Democrática. Mexico City, Mexico.

  18. Crónica de la Violencia Política (1998). Guerrero. Fundación Ovando y Gil, Secretaría de Derechos Humanos del Partido del Revolución Democrática. Mexico City, Mexico.

  19. Davis, D. E., & Pereira, A. (Eds.) (2003). Irregular armed forces and their role in politics and state formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. de la Peña, G. (1981). A legacy of promises: agriculture, politics, and ritual in the Morelos highlands. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Delgado, R. (1989). Ovando y Gil en Vispera de Elecciones. Ediciones de Cultura Popular. Mexico City, Mexico.

  22. Eisenstadt, T. (2000). Eddies in the third wave: Protracted transitions and theories of democratization. Democratization, 7(3), 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Eisenstadt, T. (2002). Measuring electoral court failure in democratizing Mexico. International Political Science Review, 23(1), 47–68 (January).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Eisenstadt, T. (2004). Courting democracy in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Faucher, P., & Fitzgibbons, K. (1989). Dissent and the state in Latin America. In C. E. S. Franks (Ed.), Dissent and the state (pp. 138–168). Ontario: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gledhill, J. (1995). Neoliberalism, transnationalization and rural poverty: A Case study of Michoacán, Mexico. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Goldberg, C. (2002). The evil we do – The psychoanalysis of destructive people. New York: Prometheus.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gómez-Tagle, S. (1994). Electoral Violence and Negotiation. In: N. Harvey & M. Serrano (Eds), Party politics in an uncommon democracy: Political parties and elections in Mexico (p. 72–92). London: Institute of Latin American Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gutiérrez, M. (1998). Violencia en Guerrero. Mexico City: Ediciones La Jornada.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Henry, J. S. (2004). The theft of Mexico: How the 1988 Presidential Election was rigged, Submerging markets Working Paper.

  32. Hernández, O. A., & Portes, M. A. (1985). Derecho del pueblo Mexicano: Mexico a traves de sus constituciones (Rights of the Mexican nation: Mexico through its constitutions), 3rd ed. Mexico: Camara de Diputados.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Horcasistas, J. M. (1989). The future of the electoral system. In W. A. Cornelius, J. Gentleman & P. H. Smith (Eds.), Mexico’s alternative political futures (pp. 265–290). San Diego, CA: University of California, San Diego, Center for US–Mexican Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Human Rights Watch (2002). Zimbabwe: Submission to the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. January 30, 2002., http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/zimbabwe/Zim3-05.htm.

  35. IACHR (1999). Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). 1999. Organization of American States, Report Number 48/49, April 13, 1999.

  36. Impunity (1990). Human Rights in Mexico: A policy of impunity. New York, NY: Americas Watch.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Klee, E., Dressen, W., & Ries, V. (1991). ‘Those were the days: The holocaust through the eyes of the perpetrators and bystanders. London: Hamish Hamilton.

    Google Scholar 

  38. La Jornada 10/11/00;10/14/00; 4/10/02; 7/28/02; 9/24/02; 11/3/01; 2/6/03; 11/16/05.

  39. Lupsha, P. (1995). Transnational Nacro-corruption and Narco-investment: A focus on Mexico, Transnational Organized Crime, Spring, pp. 1–25.

  40. Mauleón, V. (2000). The other PRD victims: The widows of puebla. http://www.journalism.berkeley.edu/mexico/victoriapuebla.htm.

  41. Menzies, K. (2000). State Crime by the Police and Its Control, Controlling State Crime (2nd edn., pp. 141–162). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Middlebrook, K. J. (1986). Political liberalization in an authoritarian regime: The case of Mexico. In G. O’Donnell, P. C. Schmitter & L. Whitehead (Eds.), Transitions from authoritarian rule: Latin America (pp. 123–147). Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  43. Oppenheimer, A. (1996). Bordering on chaos – Guerrillas, stockbrokers, politicians and Mexico’s road to prosperity. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pansters, W. (1999). The transition under Fire: Rethinking contemporary Mexican politics. In K. Koonings & D. Kruijt (Eds.), Societies of fear: The legacy of civil war, violence and terror in Latin America (pp. 235–263). London and New York: Zed.

  45. Pimental, S. (2000). The nexus of organized crime and politics in Mexico. In J. Bailey & R. Godson (Eds.), Organized crime and democratic governance (pp. 33–57). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Proceso. 2/6/89. Habitantes de Charapan culpan al alcalde despuesto de provocar la matanza de la que se culpa a cardenistas, pp. 17–20.

  47. Proceso. 6/5/89. Cambiaron los papeles en la permanente:el PRI actua como el opositor en Michoacán, pp. 10–11.

  48. Proceso. 6/26/89. Acusado de promover la violencia in Michoacán, el PRI culpa a los cardenistas de valerse de ella, pp. 28–29.

  49. Proceso. 2/12/90. Irreconciliables, priístas y perredistas sumen a Guerrero en la violencia, pp. 6–9.

  50. Proceso. 3/5/90. Si no se pone un alto a la violencia es porque el gobierno no quiere: Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, pp. 6–11.

  51. Proceso. 3/12/90. Ruiz Massieu negocia y agrede, pero no acata los acuerdos en Gobernación, pp. 6–12.

  52. Proceso. 4/29/91. Represión de presuntos candidatos, en Guerrero, pp. 29–30.

  53. Proceso. 6/29/91. Hasta el Congreso entró a agredir la policía guerrense, p. 31.

  54. Proceso. 2/3/92. Narra uno de los autores como cuatro policías asesinaron a José Ramón García. pp. 26–28.

  55. Proceso. 1/3/94. Guerrero: los colgados y otras historias de justicia por propia mano, pp. 26–27.

  56. Proceso. 9/11/95. La guerra oculta de Chiapas: guardias blancas y grupos paramilitares en acción, bajo el cobijo gubernamental. pp. 26–31.

  57. Proceso. 3/4/96. La declaración ministerial de Figeroa lo comprueba: El fiscal hizo suya la versión del gobernador, pp. 6–8.

  58. Proceso. 6/30/96. Cárdenas quiso entenderse de alguna manera con Salinas, afirma Muñoz Ledo; responde Cuauhtémoc: Son mentiras, bajezas, fantasías, pp. 14–19.

  59. Proceso. 5/2/99. Rubén Figueroa, víctima de un complot político y de una campaña de Televisa aunque era muy amigo de Zedillo, afirma un libelo de dos coacusados, pp. 26–28.

  60. Rabasa, E. (1912). La constitución y la dictadura; estudio sobre la organización política de México. Mexico, Tipografía de Revista de Revistas.

  61. Reding, A. (1989). Mexico Under Salinas: A Facade of Reform. World Policy Journal, 6, 1–45 (Fall).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Reforma Poll (1998). November 11 public opinion poll.

  63. Ríos Martínez, Rufino. (1992). Declaracion primoridal ante la fiscalía, December 16.

  64. Rojas-Alba, M. (1996). Las Manos Sucias: Violaciones a los derechos humanos en Mexico (1988–1995). Mexico, DF: Grijalbo.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ronquillo, V. (1996). La Guerra Oculta: Impunidad y violencia politica. Mexico, DF: España Hoy.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ross, J. I. (1995) (Ed.). Controlling state crime, New York, NY: Garland.

  67. Ross, J. I. (1995). Controlling state crime: Toward an integrated structural model. In J. I. Ross (Ed.), Controlling state crime. New York, NY: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Ross, J. I. (2003). The Dynamics of Political Crime. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Ross, J. I., Barak, G., Ferrell, J., Kauzlarich, D., Hamm, M., Friedrichs, D., et al. (1999). The state of state crime research: A commentary. Humanity and Society, 23, 273–281.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Ross, J. I. (Ed.) (2000). Varieties of state crime and its control. New York: Criminal Justice.

  71. Schatz, S. (1998). A neo-Weberian approach to constitutional courts in the transition from authoritarian rule: the case of Mexico, 1994–1997. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 26, 217–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Schatz, S. (2001). In cold blood: Opposition, and murder in the rise of Mexico’s Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD). Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 23, 255–295 (in Political Opportunities, Social Movements and Democratization).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Schatz, S. (2006). Disarming the legal system: Impunity for the political murder of dissidents in Mexico. International Criminal Justice Review (manuscript under review).

  74. Simmel, G. (1971). On individuality and social forms. In D. N. Levine (Ed. and Intro), Selected writings. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

  75. Simon, H. (1982). Models of bounded rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Simon, D. R. (2002). Elite deviance (7th ed.). Boston: Allen and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Smelser, N. J. (1997). Some determinants of destructive behavior. In The Social Edges of Psychoanalysis (pp. 85–92). Berkeley: University of California Press.

  78. Stephen, L. (1997). The Zapatista Army of National Liberation and the National Democratic Convention. Latin American Perspectives, 87(22), 88–99 (Fall).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Snyder, J. (2000). From voting to violence: Democratization and nationalist conflict. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of Criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Terra Noticias, 10/27/01. Recordará PRD a Militantes Asesinados.

  82. Turk, A. T. (1982). Political criminality: The defiance and defense of authority. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Velasco Piña, A. (2005). Sociedad secreta gobernó Mexico 70 años, afirman, La Jornada, 9/19/05.

  84. Villareal, A. (2002). Political competition and violence in Mexico: Hierarchical social control in local patronage structures. American Sociological Review, 67, 477–498, August.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Weldon, J. (2003). Changing patterns of executive–legislative relations in Mexico. In K. J. Middlebrook (Ed.), Dilemmas of political change in Mexico, London: Institute of Latin American Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Zamora, P. (1993). Con su placa de policía, Apolo Bernabé reprimió a sangre y fuego a líderes socialies. Demoz, 193, 2–5, March 29.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Zepeda Lecuona, G. (1999). Ineficiencia al servicio de la impunidad: las organizaciones de la procuracion de justicia en Mexico (Project paper, December 1999).

  88. Zurita, B. (1999). Tendencias y causas del delito violento en el districto federal, informe final. Washington, DC: Modern Health Foundation, World Bank Publication.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schatz, S. Authorizing state crime in Mexico: the importance of a destructive social milieu. Crime Law Soc Change 46, 97–132 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-006-9042-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-006-9042-4

Keywords

Navigation