Femicide Laws, Unilateral Divorce, and Abortion Decriminalization Fail to Stop Women's Killings in Mexico (2407.06722v1)

Abstract: This paper evaluates the effectiveness of femicide laws in combating gender-based killings of women, a major cause of premature female mortality globally. Focusing on Mexico, a pioneer in adopting such legislation, the paper leverages variations in the enactment of femicide laws and associated prison sentences across states. Using the difference-in-difference estimator, the analysis reveals that these laws have not significantly affected the incidence of femicides, homicides of women, or reports of women who have disappeared. These findings remain robust even when accounting for differences in prison sentencing, whether states also implemented unilateral divorce laws, or decriminalized abortion alongside femicide legislation. The results suggest that legislative measures are insufficient to address violence against women in settings where impunity prevails.

• The paper finds that femicide laws, unilateral divorce, and abortion reforms have not significantly reduced gender-based killings in Mexico.
• It employs a staggered difference-in-differences method to assess both immediate and long-term effects across various states.
• The study highlights pervasive judicial impunity as a key barrier, underscoring the need for broader systemic reforms.

Analysis of Femicide Laws and Related Legislative Measures in Mexico

The paper at hand presents a rigorous analysis of the impact of legislative measures aimed at mitigating gender-based violence in Mexico, particularly femicides. The analysis covers femicide laws, unilateral divorce laws, and the decriminalization of abortion, all considered within the socio-political context of Mexico. The paper methodically investigates whether these laws have contributed to reducing femicides, homicides of women, and disappearances of women using a robust difference-in-differences (DID) approach.

Utilizing a dataset encompassing variations in law implementations across different states in Mexico, the analysis leverages staggered DID estimators to estimate both immediate and long-term effects of these legislative measures. The critical outcome of this thorough examination is that femicide laws, despite being designed as hate crime legislation with stricter penalties, have not led to statistically significant reductions in femicides, homicides of women, or disappearances.

Key Findings

1. Femicide Laws: The femicide laws, which aim to categorize gender-based killings as hate crimes, did not produce a noticeable decrease in femicides or related violence against women. These results are consistent across various analyses, including comparisons of states with differing severities in femicide-related prison sentences.
2. Unilateral Divorce Laws: The enactment of unilateral divorce laws in states that had previously established femicide legislation was investigated to determine any compounded effects on reducing gender-based violence. However, the findings indicate no significant impact on the incidence of femicides or homicides, challenging the assumption that increased freedom to exit harmful marital relationships could act as a protective measure.
3. Abortion Decriminalization: The impact of abortion decriminalization was particularly scrutinized in Oaxaca, where femicide and unilateral divorce laws were already in place. The results suggest that the legalization of abortion did not correlate with a reduction in gender-based killings, contrary to theories linking greater reproductive autonomy with reduced violence.
4. Judicial Impunity and Reliability of Estimates: A notable observation from the paper is the high level of judicial impunity in Mexico, with a large percentage of cases not resulting in convictions. This environment of pervasive impunity may significantly diminish the potential deterrent effect of stringent legislative measures.

Implications and Future Directions

The findings underscore the limited efficacy of legislative measures alone in combating gender-based violence in contexts where systemic issues, such as judicial impunity and inconsistent enforcement, prevail. These results suggest that additional, multifaceted strategies should be considered to comprehensively address the root causes of femicides.

Practical Implications: Policymakers should focus on improving the enforcement of existing laws, establishing more reliable investigative protocols, and addressing systemic issues that sustain impunity. Additionally, there may be a need for broader socio-economic reforms to create an environment that naturally discourages violence against women.

Theoretical Implications: The paper contributes to the discourse on the limitations of legal reforms as standalone solutions in deeply entrenched socio-cultural contexts. Future research may explore the interplay between legal measures and cultural or educational interventions to identify more holistic solutions.

In conclusion, while the legislative efforts to categorize femicides as hate crimes are meaningful, the lack of accompanying reductions in gender-based violence indicates that these laws are insufficient without broader systemic changes. Future work should aim to integrate legislative solutions with grassroots efforts, educational campaigns, and institutional reforms to more effectively tackle the complex issue of gender-based violence.