This landmark study examines the challenges Mexico faces in reforming the administration of its justice system--a critical undertaking for the consolidation of democracy, the well-being of Mexican citizens, and U.S.-Mexican relations. The result of over four years of research from the Project on Reforming the Administration of Justice in Mexico, this bi-national collaborative initiative brought together U.S. and Mexican scholars, policy makers, law enforcement officials, lawyers, activists, and other experts to analyze diverse topics in the administration of justice. The outcome of the study presents for the first time an up-to-date analysis of the functioning and imperfections of the Mexican justice system. The contributors cover five key themes in Mexican justice reform: crime and criminology, policing and police reform, legal actors and judicial reform, civic mobilization and oversight in the justice system, and practical policy recommendations for future improvement of the justice system. In addition, they present new sources of empirical data, useful case studies evaluating state and local level challenges, and analyses of best practices. Reforming the Administration of Justice in Mexico provides an essential resource for scholars, legal practitioners, policy makers, students, and members of the general public trying to understand challenges facing Mexico's justice system today and for the foreseeable future. The book will be useful and accessible for courses on Latin American Politics, U.S.-Mexican relations, and transnational crime and security.

Reforming the Administration of Justice in Mexico examines the challenges Mexico faces in reforming the administration of its justice system, which Cornelius sees as critical for the consolidation of democracy, the well-being of Mexican citizens, and successful U.S.-Mexican relations. . . . In addition, the book presents sources of empirical data, case studies evaluating state and local level challenges, and analyses of best practices. Contributors: David A. Shirk, Alejandra Rios Cazares, Robert Buffington, Pablo Piccato, Elena Azaola, Marcelo Bergman, Benjamin Nelson Reames, Guillermo Zepeda Lecuona, Sigrid Arzt, Carlos Silva, Sara Schatz, Hugo Concha, Ana Laura Magaloni Kerpel, Elisa Speckman Guerra, Hector Fix-Fierro, Jeffrey K. Staton, Robert M. Kossick, Jr., Ruben Minutti Z., Pablo Paras, Kathleen Staudt, Irasema Coronado, Rosalva Aida Hernandez, Hector Ortiz Elizondo, Robert O. Varenik, Mario Arroyo Juarez, Allison Rowland, Marcos Pablo Moloeznik, John J. Bailey, and Wayne A. Cornelius.

This book is a systematic, comparative, multidisciplinary study of immigration policy and policy outcomes in nine industrialised democracies: the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, and Japan. It has two central theses. The first, the 'convergence hypothesis', is that there is a growing similarity in immigration policy, results, and public reaction within these nine countries. The second thesis, the 'gap hypothesis', argues that the gap between the goals of immigration policy and its outcomes is wide and growing wider. Beyond testing these hypotheses against new evidence, the book seeks to explain the declining effectiveness of immigration control measures in today's labour-importing democracies. In each of the country profiles, the author explains why certain measures were chosen, and why they usually failed to achieve their stated objectives.