proof read this and make sure my information is correct and that it is not all ai detectable please: After looking into the legal systems of Mexico and the United States, I found it fascinating how different they are considering how close we are to another. Especially when it comes to procedural and substantive law. Mexico follows a civil law system, which is all about codified laws. Judges apply these laws as they are written, without relying on past court decisions. On the other hand, the U$.$S$.$ uses a common law system, which is shaped heavily by judicial precedents. This means that how a law is applied can evolve over time based on prior rulings $($Riverside County Law Library, n$.$d$.).$ Using what I$$ve learned from this week$$s homework, I wanted to look at how procedural and substantive law show the differences between Mexico$$s legal system and ours. These two concepts work together to explain how laws are written, applied, and enforced, and they really help highlight how the two systems operate differently.

In terms of substantive law, Mexico has a very straightforward approach. Rights, obligations, and penalties are all clearly spelled out in their legal codes. For example, laws detailing theft or property disputes are set in stone, so there$$s little room for interpretation. In the U$.$S$.,$ substantive law also defines rights and responsibilities, but judges have more flexibility. They can interpret and adapt laws based on the specifics of a case and existing precedents. This adaptability is something I really appreciate about the U$.$S$.$ system because it allows for more nuanced decisions instead of applying a rule the same way in every situation.

Procedural law is where the differences really stand out. Mexico used to have an inquisitorial system where everything was handled through written documentation, and judges had a very active role in investigating cases. However, after $2008,$ they began transitioning to an adversarial system, introducing oral trials where both sides$$prosecution and defense$$can present their cases in court. This is a big step toward fairness and transparency, but Mexico is still working out some of the kinks in the process $($UNC School of Government, n$.$d$.).$

Even with these improvements, Mexico$$s system has some challenges. Corruption is a big issue, and it can really undermine trust in the justice process. Another problem is access to legal representation. In the U$.$S$.,$ if you cannot afford a lawyer, you$$re provided with a public defender. That$$s not the case in Mexico, where many people have to rely on private lawyers, which can be out of reach for low$-$income individuals. These issues create barriers to fairness, especially for people who can$$t afford to navigate the system.

When I compare the two systems, I do think the U$.$S$.$ legal system is better. The use of stare decisis$$following precedents$$provides consistency while still allowing for flexibility when needed. Procedural safeguards like the presumption of innocence and the right to a jury trial give defendants a fair shot, which is something Mexico is still working toward. At the same time, the U$.$S$.$ isn$$t perfect. Systemic racism and mass incarceration are ongoing issues that highlight the need for reform. For instance, the U$.$S$.$ has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, which is a major concern.

That said, I respect what Mexico is trying to do with its reforms. Moving toward oral trials and an adversarial system is a step in the right direction, and it shows they$$re committed to improving transparency and fairness. With time and continued effort, I think Mexico could address its challenges and make its system more effective for everyone.