This powerpoint presentation is based on France Criminal Justice System.   Due: March 31,2021 by 11:59 a.m. (ET) on Wednesday

NO LATE WORK ACCEPTED!

Please READ ALL ATTACHMENTS BELOW before beginning. PLEASE READ ATTACHMENTS FIRST!!!!

Chapter 2: France is attached, please read and include in presentation as well as other references as explained in attachments. 

 Introduction slide(s) clearly states and informs the audience about the subject matter to be covered.  This presentation is 10-17 slides in addition to the Title Slide and Reference Slides. Apa formatted, citations of original works within slides. 

Should have animations, graphics, and/or transitions where appropriate.   

The face slides should outline or support major points, be easy to read, bullet format, without being visually overloaded with text. 

 The “face slide/viewable slides” represent graduate level work. Each “content slide” has a minimum of 200 to 350 words of speaker notes (paragraphs or bullets may be used).  Major points are stated in the speaker notes in narrative or bullet format. Should have a minimum of 8 scholarly references and the Holy Bible to support the presentation 

CJUS 701

Scenario Presentation Assignment Instructions: France

This assignment will be very similar to the Scenario Paper Assignments. However, it is our desire that not only do you become a great researcher, you become an “expert of the presentation.” When you earn your PhD you may find yourself in a teaching role. In fact, maybe you will be teaching Comparative Criminal Justice Systems! This series of PowerPoint presentations will be a great start in your class preparation.

In this assignment you will find yourself in various countries as a criminal! In the scenario and analysis you create you will truly be an international criminal. The “crime” committed can be of your choosing is long as it is illegal in the country we are studying, which is France. You will find that this very deep dive into the criminal justice systems of France country we study will help you become a world criminal justice system expert.

The following is your prompt for the setting of your PowerPoint Presentation:

1) You are a US Citizen that is travelling to the country we are studying: FRANCE

2) You arrive at the country: FRANCE

3) You commit a crime in France

a. Make the crime interesting enough to write about

b. Make the crime of a nature that you will work through the country’s criminal justice system

c. Do not get caught up in the detail of the crime at the expense of the analysis – this will lead to failure of the assignment!

4) You are caught by the country’s law enforcement officers

5) You do not have diplomatic immunity and the country is balking at any means of negotiation with the US for your release from the crime and subsequent punishment

The following is an outline of what you should cover in your presentation:

1) Begin your presentation with a brief analysis of the following elements:

a. Country analysis

i. Introduction to the country

ii. People and society of the country

iii. Economy

iv. Transnational issues (if applicable) that may impact law enforcement

v. Relations with the United States

b. What is the basic government structure and its relationship to the criminal justice system

c. What is the “legal family” or basis of law in the country

d. What are the major components of the criminal justice system in the country

1) Please explain the following elements:

a. What crime did you commit? How were you caught? In other words, briefly set up the scenario.

b. Explain the country specific law

c. Explain from first contact through arrest and questioning your experience with the country’s law enforcement officials

d. Explain the detention process you will experience as a foreign national for the crime you committed

e. Explain the judicial process you’ll experience for the crime you committed

f. Explain the detention, corrections, and/or incarceration process you’ll experience for the crime you committed

1) Provide an analysis on:

a. The effectiveness of the criminal justice system in the country

b. The human rights perspective of how you were treated through the lens of the country where you were caught

c. A Holy Bible comparison/analysis of the criminal justice system of the country where you were caught

Prepare a 10 to 17 slide PowerPoint Presentation. Title slide(s) and reference slide(s) do not count toward the slide count. The vast slide count difference is due to the fact that some countries are quite easy to study and some countries have very limited information. In some instances there will be a plethora of information and you must use skilled writing to maintain proper slide count. Please keep in mind that this is a doctoral level presentation. Your research must go beyond the mere textbook and have a minimum of 8 scholarly sources. The Holy Bible should be used at least once in the PowerPoint presentation. Each slide (of the 10 to 17 slides) must have 200 to 350 words of bulleted or paragraph speakers notes (in speaker notes section of the slide build). The slides should be professional and not cluttered with too many words. The sources should be reflected in the speaker notes, slides, and “reference section slide”. Additionally, you, the student, should use animations, transitions, and graphics to reflect PhD level research. Please review the grading rubric when forming your presentation. Sources should reflect scholarly work but may include .gov information is there is an author or if the information comes from a valid government research database (think CIA or State Department). Current APA format must be used.

Page 2 of 2

CJUS 701

Scenario Presentation Grading Rubric

0 Points
Not Present

0 Points
Not Present

Advanced

92-100%

Proficient

84-91%

Developing

1-83%

Not Present

Total

0 points
Not present

0 points
Not present

Criteria	Levels of Achievement
Content (70%)		Advanced 92-100%		Proficient 84-91%		Developing 1-83%		Not Present		Total
Introduction	11 to 12 points: Introduction slide(s) clearly states and informs the audience about the subject matter to be covered.	10.25 to 10.75 points: Introduction slide(s) introduce the name of the topic but fall short on informing the audience on the subject matter to be covered.	1 to 10 points: Introduction slide(s) introduce the topic matter but do not inform the audience what areas are being covered.			0 Points Not Present
Research & Support	26.75 to 29 points: · The content is comprehensive & factually accurate. · Major points are stated in the speaker notes in narrative or bullet format. Should have a minimum of 8 scholarly references and the Holy Bible to support the presentation.	24.25 to 26.5 points: · The content is generally comprehensive & factually accurate · Most major points are stated in the speaker notes in narrative or bullet format. Students use 2 or fewer outside references.	1 to 24 points: · The content is generally comprehensive and factually accurate · Many major points are stated in the speaker notes in narrative or bullet format. Students 1 or fewer outside references.
Appearance	26.75 to 29 points: · Each “content slide” has a minimum of 200 to 350 words of speaker notes (paragraphs or bullets may be used). · The “face slide/viewable slides” represent graduate level work. · The face slides should outline or support major points, be easy to read, bullet format, without being visually overloaded with text. · Should have animations, graphics, and/or transitions where appropriate.	24.25 to 26.5 points: · Each “content slide” has 70% to 80% of the minimum required 200 words of speaker notes (paragraphs or bullets may be used). · The “face slide/viewable slides” represent graduate level work. · The face slides rely on lengthy text resembling the speaker notes as opposed to visually bullet support of points. Minimal animations, graphics, and/or transitions were used.	1 to 24 points: · Each “content slide” has 1% to 69% of the minimum required 200 words of speaker notes (paragraphs or bullets may be used). · The “face slide/viewable slides” represent less than graduate level work. · The face slides mimic speaker notes and are visually busy and difficult to read. · Little to no animations, graphics, and/or transitions were used.
Structure (30%)
Current APA Format	9.25 to 10 points: · Reference Slide(s) included and roughly follow formatting with current APA. It is recognized that there may be difficulty creating a 100% current APA formatted reference speaker notes section and/or main slide body section due to PowerPoint formatting limitations. · Citations of original works within the slides and/or speaker notes follow current APA guidelines.	8.5 to 9 points: · Reference Slide(s) included and no attempt to format in current APA and no notification to instructor if student having formatting difficulty in PowerPoint. · Citations of original works within the slides and/or speaker notes are present but do not attempt be current APA compliant.	1 to 8.25 points: · Reference Slide(s) included and no attempt to format in current APA and no notification to instructor if student having formatting difficulty in PowerPoint. · Missing citations within the PowerPoint slides and/or within the reference slide(s).			0 points Not present
Length	9.25 to 10 points: The PowerPoint Presentation is 10 to 17 slides in addition to the Title Slide and Reference Slides.	8.5 to 9 points: The PowerPoint Presentation is 70 to 80% of the required 10 to 17 slides in addition to the Title Slide and Reference Slides.	1 to 8.25 points: The PowerPoint Presentation is 1 to 69% of the required 10 to 17 slides in addition to the Title Slide and Reference Slides.
Grammar & Spelling	9.25 to 10 points: · General rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed with no more than 2 errors in the main body presentation slides (excluding speaker notes). Remember bullet format is allowed for the main body for grading purposes. · Spelling is correct with no more than 2 spelling errors in the main body and speaker notes slides.	8.5 to 9 points: · General rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed with 3 to 5 errors in the main body presentation slides (excluding speaker notes). Remember bullet format is allowed for the main body for grading purposes. · Spelling is correct with no more than 3 to 5 spelling errors in the main body and speaker notes slides.	1 to 8.25 points: · General rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed with 6 to 8 errors in the main body presentation slides (excluding speaker notes). Remember bullet format is allowed for the main body for grading purposes. · Spelling is correct with no more than 6 to 8 spelling errors in the main body and speaker notes slides.
Professor Comments:	Total:	/100

Page 2 of 3

1

Chapter 2

France

Concepts to Know

· Office of the President of France

· Ministry of the Interior

· National Gendarmerie

· Proximity Policing

· Republican Security Company

· Constitutional Council

· Courts of Assize

· National School for the Judiciary

· Ordinance of Villers-Cotterets (1539)

· Justinian’s Code

· Code of Criminal Procedure

· Garde à Vue

· Flagrant Offense

· Investigating Judge

· Liberty and Detention Judge

· Chamber of Instruction

· Post-Sentencing Judge

· Juvenile Judge

Introduction

FRANCE is the largest country in continental Europe, consisting of 220,668 square miles. (Although Russia is larger, it occupies territory from Eastern Europe across northern Asia.)

The country’s land borders are shared with Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Luxembourg, and Belgium, and the coastal boundaries include the English Channel, Atlantic Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea. When compared to the United States, France’s over 62 million

Figure 2.1

 France

Map courtesy of Bruce Jones Design Inc.

inhabitants live in an area that is smaller than the state of Texas. A majority of the French people lived for centuries in the provincial areas of the country. This changed after World War II as people moved to urban areas in search of employment. Paris is the premier city in the country. Its significance is based on the fact that it is not only the political, financial, and cultural center of the country but also home to the largest number of industrial complexes (see 
Figure 2.1
).

The most notable change in the country’s economy has been the emergence of more large-scale and sophisticated industries. Compared to England and Germany, France was slow to develop its industrial complex. Among the reasons frequently cited for this were the country’s lack of natural resources, such as coal, and a preference for a rural environment. Today, France has established itself as a major industrial power. Its principal industries include automobiles, airplanes, chemicals, electronics, and energy.

The country appears fairly homogeneous on the surface. French is the official language, and the people are fiercely loyal to maintaining its linguistic purity. For centuries, the country was referred to as the eldest daughter of the Catholic Church. Some of the most significant examples of French culture are its religious paintings and the architectural designs of its cathedrals. Its principal public holidays, with the exception of two, are Catholic holidays.

These are largely superficial displays of homogeneity, however. France may be a Catholic country, but less than one-quarter of its citizens practice the religion with any degree of regularity. There are also significant and quite pronounced regional differences that include not only local customs that have existed for centuries but also more recent political and economic distinctions. For example, much of the industry is located in the north and northeast, whereas the west and southwest remain rural. Since the end of World War II, France has divested itself of what was once the second largest colonial empire. As a result, some of the people from these African, Middle Eastern, and Far Eastern holdings have emigrated to the mother country for political and economic reasons, thus diversifying the population further. Finally, French participation in the European Union has led to a large influx of guest workers from other European countries. Each of these factors has fostered the creation of a fairly heterogeneous society.

Government

The French have perceived themselves for centuries as the leader (or at least at the center) of the development of European civilization. Indeed, the cultural contributions of the French people are beyond dispute. They have consistently made significant accomplishments in art, music, literature, science, and philosophy, and the country has never been isolated from the political events of Europe. Since the early medieval period, France has been at the center of European power struggles. In the early modern era, it attempted to rival Great Britain for colonial supremacy in the New World.

France’s modern contributions to political and social theory are of particular interest for our purposes. They not only assist us in comprehending French perceptions of government and social order, but they also indicate the state’s role in assuring that political and social mandates are carried out. If one were to ask a student of French politics to characterize the political climate of the country over the past 200 years, the response would most likely suggest a state of ambivalence, fragmentation, instability, and vacillation. No doubt, the student would also maintain that the principal reason for this state of uncertainty is the variation among individual perceptions regarding the historical significance of France’s famous Revolution of 1789. Since the Revolution, the French have shown an affinity for two ideas that are often at cross-purposes with one another. They have had a long and deep attachment to personal liberty, yet they also have an abiding faith in authority—especially when the power is wielded by a hero who serves both as a symbol and as a catalyst for national unity.

In the realm of national politics, comparisons between England and France have proved especially instructive at illustrating the diverse methods for establishing democratic principles and institutions. The most striking difference between these two countries has been the issue of constitutional continuity. The British largely resolved their political differences in 1688 with their Glorious Revolution. Since that time, political revolution and violent change in government have been noticeably absent in Britain. The British view political change as essentially evolutionary, and they have tended to view their political past with an affection that allows them to retain many traditional institutions.

The French have largely rebelled against their past, at least as it pertains to their political system. After all, the purpose of the French Revolution was to overthrow the ancient régime, which had enabled the Bourbon monarchy to rule the country by retaining many of the remnants of France’s feudal past while initiating a highly centralized and modern bureaucracy to govern the country. Unlike Britain’s Glorious Revolution, which resolved the main political controversies once and for all, France’s Revolution left the political debate unresolved. As such, the history of modern France has been one of recurrent revolution or threats of revolution. This is illustrated by the fact that since 1789 France has been governed by three constitutional monarchies, two empires, one semi-dictatorship, and five republics.

Another reason for the diversity between the modern political histories of Great Britain and France relates to a central feature of French political thought, that is, the ideological purity with which the French have often approached politics. Ideological purity enhances the likelihood that the political climate will be dominated by a sense of uncertainty, because the unbending commitment to political ideals leaves little room for pragmatic compromise. The French also have been fond of hero worship, especially in the political context. Heroes, of which the French have had many, have played an instrumental role in enhancing national unity.

Modern French political ideas have their basis in the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. Like other modern democracies, most notably England and the United States, the intellectual milieu of the Enlightenment philosophes had a profound impact on political theory. During the late eighteenth century, there emerged at least two major views as to how governmental reform should proceed in France.

On the one hand, there was a group of philosophes whose approach and attitude toward change was similar to that of the leaders of the American Revolution. In fact, some joined the American colonists in their cause and thus gained both intellectual and emotional sustenance for their own cause in France. This group believed in the inalienable rights of humankind and in the perfectibility of “man” through human progress. Thus, they were committed to overthrowing the political and religious tyranny that dominated eighteenth-century France and to the establishment of reason, humanitarianism, and individualism.

On the other hand, a second group—equally committed to the overthrow of tyranny— had a different perspective of the future. This group adopted the views expressed by Jean Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau exalted human instinct over reason and emphasized the community’s interests over those of individual rights. For Rousseau, there were no inalienable rights, only the rule of the majority. Thus, political equality was more significant than political liberty. The right of all to participate in the governmental process was more important than the right to be protected against the will of the government.

Through its famous Revolution, France adopted many of the basic political principles that have become synonymous with democracy. Among these are a commitment to the principles of equal rights for all, equality of representation, derivation of government powers from the people, separation of church and state, and government under law. These principles were embodied in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789). To this day, they remain the central doctrines of French republicanism.

Finally, it was noted earlier that the French Revolution was prompted in part by the desire to overthrow religious tyranny. That tyranny was associated with the power of the Roman Catholic Church that had been incrementally accrued since medieval times. Since the Revolution, the state has established a policy of laicité or secularism in French politics and society. This policy is best illustrated by laws enacted to explain how the state and organized religion interact. The actual term, laicité, was first used in legislation in 1905 to address the notion of the separation of the state and church. In the French context at the time, emphasis was directed at reducing the influence of the Catholic Church in public institutions, in particular, schools.

How the term is employed and interpreted today has created a good deal of controversy. A recent tension has centered on the 2004 law that prohibits the wearing of clothing in public schools that identifies a student’s religious affiliation. The specific controversy is the banning of Muslim girls from wearing headscarves to public schools (Bowen, 2007). This law also illustrates another theme previously mentioned in French political theory, that is, the emphasis placed on the state and the majority interests over perceived individual rights.

For some time now, there have been tensions between various agents of the French government and Muslim communities. It should be noted that France has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe, estimated at 5 to 6 million people. The strained relations have been especially notable with agents of the criminal justice system in general and the police in particular. While headscarves may have exacerbated the uneasiness in the recent past, there is a greater concern of late over young Muslims leaving the country to join jihadists in the Middle East and, in some cases, returning to France.

Constitution

The French government is organized and administered according to the Constitution of the Fifth Republic. This constitution is often referred to as Gaullist, because the document was essentially the creation of General Charles de Gaulle. On June 1, 1958, de Gaulle became prime minister of France while the Constitution of the Fourth Republic was still in effect. The general’s mandate was to revise the constitution, and by September of that year, he submitted to the French people in a national referendum his constitution for the Fifth Republic.

Unlike many written constitutions, including the Constitution of the Fourth Republic, the new document did not contain a bill of rights that specifically clarified civil liberty issues. Article 2 simply states, “France is a Republic, indivisible, secular, democratic and social. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs.” Moreover, the preamble solemnly proclaims its attachment to “the Declaration of the Rights of Man and reaffirms its commitment to the civil rights established in the Constitution of the Fourth Republic.” However, the preamble does not have the force of law.

The entire document is divided into 24 titles, including a total of 92 articles. Each title is addressed to a particular aspect of constitutional authority. For example, Title I is concerned with sovereignty, while Titles II through IV are devoted respectively to the president, the government, and the parliament. The order in which each appears in the constitution is illustrative of the significant position that has been afforded the president and the secondary status of parliament. When compared to the Fourth Republic, these are important changes.

The Constitution of the Fifth Republic was unmistakably influenced by the political views of de Gaulle. Under the Fifth Republic, the president is vested with broad powers. The ultimate holder of state power, the president delegates authority and mediates between governmental authorities to assure that constitutional principles are safeguarded. De Gaulle tailored the office of presidency to fit the image that he perceived himself to exemplify.

President

As was previously indicated, the Office of the President of France is vested with extremely broad and independent powers. It is said that the presidency is a politically irresponsible position, because the other branches of government have an impotent check on the office. The president is elected to a five-year term by direct universal suffrage. Until 2008, there were no limits on the number of terms a president could serve. It is now limited to two. The president is the head of state, but this is not a mere figurehead position, for he or she is responsible for assuring the country’s national independence and adherence to the constitution. According to Article 5, the president accomplishes these tasks through a position as mediator or arbitrator.

The constitution also gives the president a number of personally significant powers. The president appoints the premier, who is the head of the government. The president has the prerogative to dissolve the National Assembly on any issue at any time. There is one proviso, however; this can be done only once within a year’s time. The president may also submit to the people, by way of referendum, certain issues that deal with governmental powers. Additionally, according to Article 16, if the country is in grave danger, or if the governmental authority created by the constitution is in some way disrupted, the president has the discretionary power to take appropriate measures to resolve the crisis. The Constitutional Council must first be consulted under such circumstances. Finally, the president signs all decrees and ordinances prepared by the Council of Ministers and may question the constitutionality of any bill before parliament or law passed by it.

Premier

The premier (also referred to as the prime minister) is appointed by the president. According to the constitution, the premier is the head of the government (or administration), while the president is the head of state. The premier is not merely a ceremonial figure, but his or her status is less significant under the Fifth Republic than under the Fourth. Although the premier directs government operations, which define and conduct the policy of the nation, it is the president who actually decides government policy. The premier serves as a link between the president and parliament. He or she appears before parliament to defend or explain government policy, determines the composition of the Council of Ministers, presides over its meetings, and is responsible for the administration of the various governmental departments.

Council of Ministers

The Council of Ministers is the French equivalent to cabinet government. Members of the council are selected by the premier with the approval of the president. The size of the council varies with each government and is dependent on the particular needs of the times. The composition of the council has changed significantly under the Fifth Republic. The Council of Ministers is no longer composed of members of parliament, who in the past had to resign their legislative seat to serve in the council. Instead, presidents of the Fifth Republic have relied upon people who often have had no legislative experience. Increasingly, the council has been composed of three kinds of people: career civil servants, university professors, and technical experts. Like councils of ministers under previous regimes, the principle of cabinet responsibility is retained and is more effectively enforced because the premier and the ministers are dependent upon presidential power.

Parliament

The Fifth Republic retained the bicameral parliament. The parliament consists of the Senate (known as the upper chamber) and the National Assembly (referred to as the lower chamber). The Senate is composed of 348 senators who are elected to six-year terms, with one-third of the membership being elected every three years. Senators are not elected directly by the people; rather, an electoral college (which is composed of about 145,000 people) votes for the candidates. The college consists of members of department and municipal councils in addition to members of the National Assembly. The Senate shares the legislative powers with the National Assembly, but the lower chamber is considered more powerful than the upper chamber because the latter’s authority does not allow them to dismiss a government.

The National Assembly is composed of 577 deputies, who are elected directly by the people to five-year terms. Although the National Assembly shares its legislative duties with the Senate, there are two exceptions to this principle. The National Assembly always examines the government’s budget first, and the Council of Ministers is responsible only to the lower chamber. These exceptions tilt the balance of power between the two chambers toward the National Assembly.

The power of both chambers has been limited by the Fifth Republic. For example, each chamber holds two sessions during the course of a legislative term. One begins in October and is concluded in December, while the other session commences in April and ends in July. Extra sessions can be requested by the premier or by a majority in the National Assembly. Article 34 of the constitution is quite specific on the extent of parliament’s law-making authority. All legislation that is not mentioned in the article is enacted by the government through decrees. Moreover, parliament no longer controls the order of its business, for this authority is now determined by the government. In addition, the government can reject any amendments attached to its bills by demanding a vote either on the bill it submitted or on only those amendments that it approves.

Political Parties

As was previously indicated, French politics tend to be unstable. This is caused in part by the manner in which French politicians and voters approach political issues. How individuals perceive the place of the French Revolution in history impacts upon their views of the politics of the present and the direction they advocate for the future. The French also have had a tendency to emphasize ideological purity and a commitment to political principles; as a result, they often have rejected compromises proposed for the pragmatic considerations at hand. This political posturing helped lead France to a multiparty system.

It has been suggested that the establishment of the Fifth Republic has had a significant impact on the party system, with regard to both the internal characteristics of parties and their willingness to work as coalition partners (Ehrmann, 1976). Unlike England and the United States, which tend to have fairly stable parties, France’s system is unpredictable; political parties tend to emerge and decline. There has been a marked decline in membership in virtually all the major political parties. This disenchantment has been attributed, in part, to domestic economic concerns and the uncertain future position of France with regard to the European Union.

With regard to presidential elections, it is interesting to note the relationship between political parties and presidential candidates. At times, the French approach can be somewhat different from that of the political processes in England and the United States in which a candidate from a party is selected to run for president. While some French candidates receive the endorsement of their party, there are cases in which a person announces candidacy and then seeks the endorsement of a political party or parties. Therefore, it is not necessary for a presidential candidate to have a close association with a political party, nor is it unusual for a political party not to have a presidential candidate. Finally, because of the multiparty system and the changing nature of the parties, political commentators have often grouped parties into one of three ideological categories: right, center, and left.

National Front

The extreme right is represented by the National Front. It has received a good deal of attention for the past two decades, in part because of the tactics of its founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen. The principal item on the agenda of the National Front is its opposition to minority groups, particularly the influx of immigrants. The party alleges that immigrants take jobs away from French citizens and are responsible for a significant amount of crime. Moreover, the party’s opposition to immigration has been strongly associated of late with Islamic terrorists. In 2011, Marine Le Pen succeeded her father as the leader of the National Front.

There are other small political parties or action groups of the far right that tend to support the National Front during presidential elections. These groups include royalists, fascists, and Roman Catholics who have rejected the modernization within their church.

Movement for France

The Movement for France is a relatively new political party that is also associated with the far right. It is similar to the National Front in that it opposes European Union and free trade and supports family, church, and law and order. It differs from the National Front in the manner in which it delivers its message of returning to traditional values. For example, on the issue of immigration, the position of the National Front is to deport all non-European immigrants and to expel any immigrant who is unemployed or convicted of a crime. The position of the Movement for France on this issue is to implement humane measures to stop the influx of more immigrants.

Union for a Popular Movement (UMP)

The UMP (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire) is the most recent version of the party that supports the Gaullist movement. It is a fairly large party that manages to attract a good cross-section of the population. The party differs considerably from that of the RPF (Rassemblement du Peuple Français), which served as the first standard-bearer of Gaullism. People who supported the RPF were primarily attracted to it because of de Gaulle’s personality. Supporters of the UMP are more concerned with solving France’s problems through a conservative platform than with holding on to an ideological past. The party favors a market economy, but it also supports a significant degree of state regulation by the central government.

Socialist Party

The Socialist Party is the successor of the old SFIO (Section Française de l’Internationale Ouvriere), which at one time represented the cause of French socialism. Until the 1970s, most political commentators alleged that the principal problem facing the socialists was the fact that there was another viable political party in France that was even further to the left (that is, the Communist Party). As a result, the socialists failed to attract the necessary following to win the presidential election. In the early 1970s, however, the socialists reorganized under the leadership of François Mitterrand, and in 1981, Mitterrand won the presidential election. Two factors contributed to his success: a decline in support of the Communist Party and a public rejection of the continued governance by the political right, which had maintained power for more than 20 years. In 1988, he was reelected to a second term as president, with the goal of forming a center-left coalition. Today, the Socialists support a strong state and a mixed economy.

Communist Party (PCF)

For a time, the French Communist Party attracted the support of the trade union movement. The PCF (Parti Communiste Français) was allied with Moscow but often took a moderate stand in order to compete with socialists for votes. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, it made respectable showings in various elections, but with the success of the Socialist Party in the 1980s, its influence declined. The party supports enhancing the social welfare system, increasing the minimum wage, reducing the income tax, and increasing the wealth tax.

Green Parties

In countries that have a multiparty system, it has become increasingly common to find one that is identified as the principal advocate for ecological issues. They are often simply referred to as the Green Party. Presently, there are two groups associated with this movement in France; they are the Greens and the Ecologists. In addition to the environment, people associated with these parties also tend to support greater opportunities for women in politics.

Administration

Despite the inherent uncertainties of French politics and the various changes regarding the basic method of governance, there had been one factor that remained stable for more than 200 years: the bureaucracy or civil service. Unlike England and the United States, where there is a tradition of local participation and decision making in government, the French have prized a highly centralized administrative system. This system has its origins in the seventeenth century when Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin and Jean Baptiste Colbert created a bureaucracy that wrestled power from the nobility in the provinces and placed it firmly in the hands of the Bourbon monarchy. When Napoleon came to power, he simply streamlined the system further.

Although the national bureaucracy is highly centralized in Paris, one should not be left with the impression that all administrators are situated in that city. Most are located in the provinces, where they can implement policy directly. Since 1790, the departments (of which there are 96 on the mainland and four in the overseas territories) have been the basic units of French government. These units of administration are similar to counties. However, they do not establish local policies independently; rather, they are viewed as subunits of the national government. Each department is administered by a prefect appointed by the government to enforce the laws and orders of the nation and, until relatively recently, to supervise local units of government.

Communes are also a significant unit of government. They vary in size and are located in both urban and rural areas. Each commune has a municipal council elected by the people. The council, in turn, selects one of its own to serve as mayor. The mayor is expected to serve as both a national administrator and a municipal supervisor. The relationship of the mayor to both the national government and his or her local commune is illustrative of the manner in which the French have perceived local government.

With the election of François Mitterrand as president in 1981, significant changes were introduced regarding the nature of public administration. One of the principal pledges of the Socialist Party was to bring government closer to the people through a process of decentralization or self-management at the local level. One should not be left with the view that the goal of decentralization was unique to the Socialist Party, however. Previous governments of the Fifth Republic addressed this issue. In fact, a central feature of General de Gaulle’s plans to modernize France involved regional administrative reforms, especially in the area of economics. Nevertheless, most experts are of the opinion that the reforms introduced by Mitterrand in 1982 were the most far-reaching since Napoleon introduced his structure of governance for the country in 1801.

Mitterrand’s legislation was designed to enhance the role of local systems of government. While the prefects retained state powers over law and order, local systems of government could opt to hire their own executive to administer new local governmental functions. The local executive would be accountable to the mayor and locally elected officials. The new functions specifically earmarked for local governments include urban planning, housing, transportation, job training, social services, some educational and cultural programs, environmental controls, and (most controversial of all) some local police services. The legislation permits communes to waive these new responsibilities, and some of the smaller ones that cannot afford to hire an executive have asked their prefect to help manage these new responsibilities. This is essentially what the prefects of the departments used to do before the introduction of efforts to decentralize the government.

Although Mitterrand’s government was committed to decentralization and initiated the enabling legislation, these complex changes will take some time to implement. Some degree of consensus is needed with regard to identifying the responsibilities that are best left at the national level and those that are appropriate for local units of government. In addition, local governments have to be willing and capable of undertaking these new duties, while national units of government have to be willing to surrender some long-standing responsibilities.

A number of points described within the French political context have important implications for France’s criminal justice system. Most significant is the fact that the country has had an unstable political past that has been accompanied by violent rhetoric and revolution. Central to French political thought are two conflicting views in perceiving the role of the individual citizen. One favors individual liberty, while the other embraces the belief that the community’s interests should take precedence over individual rights. Moreover, the reliance of the French upon a centralized government bureaucracy is also important when assessing the organization and administration of the criminal justice system. More recent implementation of reforms designed to decentralize that authority could alter that assessment over time.

Police

Many countries throughout the world have established a national centralized police system as the principal vehicle for law enforcement responsibilities. From a Western perspective, this model traces its origins to the Roman style of policing, in which the central government created a police force for the community. Today, this approach is found in both democratic and nondemocratic countries. Unlike the fragmented police model, which is found in the United States and is attributed to the federated nature of the political system, the centralized police system is imposed on the people by the national government. Law enforcement is administered, supervised, and coordinated by that government. Moreover, the police are considered by both themselves and others as representatives of the state. For our purposes, France serves as an example of a democratic country that has established a national police system.

Throughout the history of France, Paris has had a unique place in the chronicles of the country. It is generally agreed that the French king, Hugh Capet (987–996), established the first police force when he created the position of Provost of Paris. This office combined three significant enforcement responsibilities: President of the Court of Justice, Military Governor, and Governor of the Police. The merger of these responsibilities was a result of Roman influence from when the ancient country of Gaul was part of the Roman Empire; it remained a characteristic of the French police establishment for centuries.

The provost was assisted in law enforcement duties by a number of forces. For example, the provost had at his disposal an artillery company, a horse patrol, a foot patrol, and “watchmen.” This array of units was reinforced further by constables and night-watch sentries who were responsible for policing specific quarters (territorial divisions) of the city. Because French kings were politically weak, they were not in a position to impose their police system on the rest of the country. As a result, the nobles who controlled the provinces tended to rely upon their military troops to maintain order in the countryside. This dual system of Parisian and provincial law enforcement was to exist relatively unchanged until the seventeenth century.

French kings solidified their royal authority by the seventeenth century. Under the forceful administrations of Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin, the reigns of Louis XIII and Louis XIV marked France’s preeminence in the world. It was during this time that Jean Baptiste Colbert, Louis XIV’s finance minister, created a truly national police force. The organization established in Paris is described here, but similar forces were created in the provinces on a modified scale.

The leader of the police in the city was called the lieutenant-general of police. Appointed by the king, the lieutenant-general was both magistrate and chief public safety officer. Thus, the Roman tradition of combining these duties (which was carried on by Hugh Capet in the medieval period) continued into the early modern era. Public safety at that time was not limited to controlling the criminal elements; it had a much broader connotation that encompassed political, social, and economic concerns. To illustrate, it was the lieutenant-general who developed fire brigades and ordered the streets cleaned.

Of particular interest is the elaborate police system that the lieutenants-general had at their disposal. It included commissioners of police who were distributed throughout the quarters of the city and served as both magistrates and police executives. Assigned to each quarter were police inspectors who served as the king’s detectives. The maintenance of order in public places was the responsibility of police adjutants. They were assisted in their work by a special group of sentries who were seconded from the royal foot guards and garrisoned in the city. There were also 10 brigades of archers who patrolled the streets during the day. The watch guard, composed of both a foot and a horse patrol, patrolled the city at night. These forces were further supplemented by a military garrison quartered in Paris in the event that the civil forces were unable to handle a public disturbance. Finally, the lieutenants-general established an extensive spy system. The purpose of this group of spies, which was composed of people from all segments of society (including doctors, lawyers, waiters, domestic servants, and prostitutes), was to assist the police in compiling dossiers on a large segment of the population. This spy network, coupled with the fact that the police possessed both judicial and police powers, led to many abuses. This situation proved instrumental in rallying people to the cause of the revolutionaries in 1789.

Despite the Revolution, the police system of the ancient régime was not totally abandoned. The abuses of authority and the use of a spy network continued. The Marquis de Lafayette united former archers and constables in 1791 to establish the National Guard, which would eventually become the National Gendarmerie. In 1800, Napoleon resurrected the lieutenant-general system, made some alterations, and expanded it throughout the country. Although the old position of lieutenant-general was abandoned, in its place prefects were assigned to each of the original 95 departments—the new territorial divisions of the country. The prefects no longer served as magistrates, though. Compared to the English, French police powers remained quite broad. During the reign of Napoleon III, the police system was expanded further with the creation of the Sûreté in 1854. Originally a criminal investigation force, the Sûreté would eventually serve as both uniformed police and a detective force throughout France. The Sûreté was merged with the Police of Paris in 1966 to form the National Police.

In the previous section of this chapter, a comparison was made between France and England regarding the political history of the two countries. Because of their long historical association with one another, comparisons are often made between the two countries, and those comparisons related to the police are worth summarizing here. It is instructive for the reader to consider that these two countries, which claim a long association with the cause of democracy and liberty, established what some perceive as strikingly different roles for their police.

Among the characteristics worth comparing is the fact that the French police have been a part of the central government for centuries. The military tradition of the police is much more pronounced than that of the British, which, like the United States, has established a quasi-military character. Moreover, despite the frequent changes in the political regimes of France, each new government has enhanced the authority of the police. Thus, the mission of the police has remained fairly consistent, irrespective of the regime in power.

Another characteristic is the extent to which French police are allowed to intervene in the lives of citizens. While the British police have occasionally been accused of overstepping their bounds, they nevertheless see their role as largely the prevention and detection of crime. French police, however, claim a much more extensive right of intervention. This may in part be attributed to the acceptance of the philosophical position espoused by Jean Jacques Rousseau, which placed the collective needs of the majority over the individual’s rights. This position is further supported by a more pragmatic rationale recognizing that the country’s large land border has been frequently crossed by opposing armies—an unsettling source of concern realized in the twentieth century during the two World Wars. As a result, the need for internal security is a dominant concern.

The French police also have had a long and close relationship with judicial authorities. As was indicated, the lieutenants-general and the commissioners of police were magistrates. Although the police no longer have such powers, they do work in close conjunction with the judiciary because of the nature of the criminal procedural process. This will be clarified to some extent in this section and at greater length in the section on the law. In any event, French citizens usually do not make as clear a distinction between the role of the police and that of the judiciary as do British and United States citizens. Both police and judiciary are viewed as agents of the state with a common mission.

Finally, the involvement of local communities in providing police services offers an interesting comparison. In England, there has been a long-standing tradition of local community input. Although the success of this endeavor has become highly suspect as more centralized administrative features appear in the English police service, at least the mechanism is in place. Moreover, the English are fond of proclaiming that the police are merely citizens in uniform. In France, throughout most of this century, the emphasis has been on establishing police forces that are essentially administered, supervised, and coordinated by the national government. Police are representatives of the state and perceive themselves as such. More recently, however, there has been an interest in establishing municipal police forces that are accountable to the local authorities.

Organization and Administration of the National Police

The National Police is the largest of the two principal police systems in France; it employs about 150,000 people. The personnel include more than 125,000 officers in the field, about 15,000 in administration, and almost 10,000 auxiliary police. The latter group consists of young people meeting their national service requirement. Accountable to the Ministry of the Interior, the National Police is responsible for policing any town with a population exceeding 16,000 (see 

Figure 2.2

).

Ministry of the Interior

The Ministry of the Interior is one of the most important ministries within the Council of Ministers. The minister of the interior is a civilian who has usually had a distinguished career in the civil service. The office is responsible for the administration, implementation, and supervision of many services provided by the national government. Among the most significant of these is law enforcement. The minister has the ultimate responsibility for the National Police force.

Figure 2.2

 Organization of the National Police

Director General of the National Police

The director general is a civilian appointed to the position by the government. A career civil servant who has spent some time in the civilian branch of French law enforcement, the director general is concerned with the central administration of the National Police. Thus, as the organizational chart indicates, there are administrative and operational divisions that keep him or her abreast of all aspects of the police service. It is from the director general’s office that the National Police are coordinated throughout the country.

Prefect

In the previous section, it was noted that a characteristic of governments under the Fifth Republic has been to decentralize some governmental tasks to regional and local levels, while retaining ultimate control at the center. Traditionally, this has been accomplished by utilizing the 96 departments (counties) in which France is geographically divided for administrative purposes. The national executive officer of a department is called a prefect. One of the responsibilities of a prefect is to coordinate the work of the National Police within the department.

Prefects have a direct link to the Director General of the National Police. Unless there is an emergency, all directives from headquarters of the National Police and National Gendarmerie are first sent to the prefects. Prefects also meet frequently with the local directors of the National Police and National Gendarmerie. They are actively involved in and ultimately responsible for decisions made with respect to policing.

The National Police has established an organizational structure for purposes of efficiency and effectiveness that is made operational at different geographical levels, depending on the function. As such, some police work is organized at the regional level, some are accountable at the department level, and others are coordinated at the regional and departmental levels. When a task is organized at the regional level, a prefect from a department within the region is designated the chief administrator for the specific function.

Police Functions

In 1995, the government adopted legislation that explained the role of law enforcement and the approach that it would take to assure greater public security for the country. Five goals were identified as special initiatives for the National Police. The goals include: (1) to assure a sense of public security; (2) to control the flow of illegal immigration; (3) to combat organized crime, especially major drug dealers; (4) to protect the country from terrorism; and (5) to maintain public order. By examining the operational divisions of the National Police in the organization chart (
Figure 2.2
), the reader is offered some understanding as to the breadth of this police agency’s law enforcement responsibilities and its capacity to address the aforementioned goals.

The Office of the Inspector General of Police was mandated by a decree in 1974 to perform three tasks. It conducts a general inspection of all units of the National Police throughout the country. The purpose of this is to determine the effectiveness of the various forces. Another task is to investigate all alleged wrongdoing on the part of the police, including both internal and external complaints that have been brought to the attention of the Inspector General. The office also takes an active role in determining the authenticity of such complaints. Finally, the Inspector General’s office carries out studies that are designed to improve the efficiency of the police.

The Judicial Police are responsible for criminal investigations. The central administration of this directorate is divided into four subdirectorates: criminal affairs, economic and financial affairs, forensic science, and external liaison. The criminal affairs subdirectorate focuses on organized crime with the exception of economic and financial matters. Of particular concern are violent crimes; illegal drugs; trafficking in human beings; trafficking in cultural property; and trafficking in arms, explosives, and nuclear, biological, and chemical materials. The economic and financial subdirectorate is concerned with tax evasion, public corruption, counterfeiting, national fraud, serious financial crimes, and computer-related crime. The subdirectorate for forensic science includes a documentation branch, forensic laboratories, and the national research, documentation, and training center. The external liaison subdirectorate was added in 1995. It is involved with collecting crime statistics from the National Police and the National Gendarmerie and in maintaining cooperation with other countries participating in international police operations.

From an operations perspective, the judicial police are divided into 19 regions throughout France and are responsible for the investigation of serious crimes. In this context, they utilize several specialist squads, including theft, drugs, economic/financial, and counterfeit units. The judicial police are also found in each department to handle routine investigative matters. In terms of their accountability, the judicial police are unique. When criminal investigations are conducted by these detectives, they must notify either a procurator (if the offense is serious) or an investigating judge (if the offense is very serious) of their suspicions. In turn, a procurator or magistrate directs the actual investigation of these serious or very serious cases. Thus, in stark contrast to the common law system of criminal investigation, the French civil law system has a police investigator and a magistrate jointly conducting the examination of very serious cases. Moreover, the suspect is informed quite early that the police and an investigating judge are proceeding with such an investigation.

The Public Security Directorate consists of the urban police or uniformed branch, which is responsible for patrolling the urban areas of the country. Members of this directorate are organized and administered from the departments. They are the most visible of all the directorates associated with the National Police because they handle most day-to-day police matters. Thus, they represent the initial efforts at both proactive and reactive policing.

In recent years, the General Intelligence Directorate and the Territorial Surveillance Directorate have been merged to form the General Directorate for Internal Security. The General Intelligence Directorate illustrated the important role that the police force plays in collecting information for the national government. The members of this directorate were often referred to as the political police; and the directorate had existed in some form since the eighteenth century. It was responsible for the collection, examination, and centralization of political, social, and economic intelligence that the government considers necessary for the country’s security. The directorate was specifically interested in preventing terrorism and monitoring groups that were viewed as a threat to national security. In more recent years, there had been a specific concern for urban violence and ethnic organizations that had either been associated with such violence or were victims of such unrest.

The Territorial Surveillance Directorate was a specialized unit devoted to state security and counter-espionage activities. It was involved with the safety of people who were at risk from international terrorist attacks. It was also concerned with the protection of industrial, scientific, and technical information, and the prevention of the misuse of nuclear, biological, and chemical materials. As such, officers from this directorate were spread throughout the country in units with the objective of protecting French technology.

The Directorate for the Control of the Borders is concerned in particular with immigration issues. This directorate includes the Air and Border Police, which handle security matters at airports and along France’s borders.

The Republican Security Company (CRS, for les Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité) is another directorate that has been mandated specific law enforcement duties. The CRS is a highly disciplined militaristic unit. It is divided into 22 regions that correspond with France’s 22 administrative regions and is organized into 61 companies, with 250 officers assigned to each company. The CRS is often referred to as the riot police. Indeed, they have the general responsibility to quell public disorders, but their mandate is not limited to controlling the periodic outbursts of student protests, industrial strikes, and other forms of social unrest. For example, the CRS is responsible for handling natural disasters (such as floods, avalanches, and forest fires), and they conduct rescue missions for stranded skiers and mountain climbers. They patrol camp sites and beaches during the summer months and serve as lifeguards. Because the CRS has a special duty to assist in the reduction of juvenile delinquency, they have established special clubs at beaches where they offer instruction in swimming, sailing, skin diving, and water skiing. Their interest in juveniles is carried over during the rest of the year through their participation in clubs that provide constructive leisure-time activities.

One of the primary responsibilities of the CRS is to assist the local police in the suburbs with their patrol functions. The CRS is also empowered to patrol the highways on the outskirts of large cities. Because they are noted as traffic specialists, they investigate accidents and conduct road safety campaigns. In addition to providing the president of France with a motorcycle escort, they are responsible for policing major sporting events.

Finally, it should be mentioned that there is a separate unit that is responsible for the security of the president of France, members of the government, and others who merit this kind of protection. This unit is also responsible for the protection of visiting dignitaries.

It should also be noted that there is a separate organization, a Coordination Unit in the Fight Against Terrorism, which is accountable to the Director General of the National Police. It is tasked, as the name suggests, with coordinating efforts with a host of agencies in addressing terrorist threats. Among the French agencies associated with this effort are: the National Police, especially the General Directorate for Internal Security, alluded to earlier; the National Gendarmerie; the General Directorate for External Security; the General Directorate for National Defense; the Directorate General for Civil Aviation; and the General Directorate for Customs. Some of the international organizations that liaise are: the European Union, Europol, the United Nations, Interpol, and several European countries like Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

Representative Organizations

Trade unions play a significant role in French society. Members of the National Police are represented by a number of unions. Presently, the number stands at about 30. Membership is based not only on the rank of the officer but is also influenced by the union’s affiliation to a particular political party. Unions are capable of influencing policy on policing; they have the right to be consulted about policy changes. Union representatives sit on various committees that deal with general policy formation. They also participate in committees designed to address specific police issues (e.g., disciplinary committees). Finally, it has been suggested that unions have supported and been significant advocates for modernizing the police service (Horton, 1995).

Organization and Administration of the National Gendarmerie

The National Gendarmerie constitutes the other principal police force of France. It has been assigned three distinct tasks. It serves as the military police for the French army, air force, and navy. It also provides law enforcement services for French overseas territories. For our purposes, however, the gendarmerie is responsible for policing towns and rural areas in France where the population is under 16,000. The National Gendarmerie has approximately 105,000 employees, of which 15,000 are young people completing their national service as gendarmes, and almost 2,000 are civilian staff.

Figure 2.3

 Organization of the National Gendarmerie

The National Gendarmerie is administratively accountable to the Ministry of Defense, because its members belong to a military police force (see 
Figure 2.3
). Since 2002, however, the Gendarmerie has been under the operational control of the Ministry of the Interior when it is carrying out its duties in France. The purpose of this change was designed to improve the cost-effectiveness of both the Gendarmerie and the National Police and to enhance the delivery of service.

Ministry of Defense

The Ministry of Defense is one of the more important ministries of the Council of Ministers. The minister of defense is responsible for the administration and coordination of the various branches of France’s armed forces. This minister is also the cabinet officer who is ultimately responsible for the Gendarmerie. Assisting in the minister’s duties are the director of the Gendarmerie and the Inspector General of the Gendarmerie. The director is trained in the law and is concerned with the central administration of the force. The Inspector General’s Office is headed by an army general. Like the Inspector General of the National Police, the Inspector General is responsible for conducting general inspections and examining ways to improve the effectiveness of the Gendarmerie.

Gendarmerie Functions

The Gendarmerie is considered a more highly disciplined force than the National Police because of its members’ military backgrounds. Members have a tendency to view themselves as part of an elite law enforcement corps. The Gendarmerie is divided into 22 regional commands that correspond with the 22 administrative regions of France. It is divided essentially into three principal kinds of operational units.

The Departmental Gendarmerie is responsible for providing law enforcement services to small towns. Members are dispersed throughout the countryside in small brigades. Each Departmental Gendarmerie would have a judicial police unit as well as a uniformed unit for basic patrol. Depending on its location, the department could also have some specialized units, such as a motorcycle unit, a river unit, or a mountain unit.

The Mobile Gendarmerie is a regional unit that is mandated to provide the same kinds of services for areas that are offered by the Republican Security Company of the National Police. The Mobile Gendarmerie works with the Departmental Gendarmerie in assuring public security. It has a special responsibility to assist with rescue operations during natural disasters and in the control of large groups of people. Because it is a reserve force, the government can use it at home, in overseas territories, or abroad.

The Republican Guard, situated in Paris, is composed of three regiments: two infantry and one cavalry. They serve as honor guards, participate in colorful state parades, and assist in guarding government officials. Thus, they aid the National Police in protecting the capital.

In addition to these principal operational units, the Gendarmerie has established the Intervention and Security Battalion, which is an elite group of gendarmes drawn from three specialized units. The intervention unit assists with such incidents as terrorist attacks, prison riots, and hostage situations. The airborne intervention squadron is trained to deal with terrorism and other select crimes. Finally, the security unit of the President of the Republic is charged with maintaining the personal safety of the president.

Municipal Police

In a previous section of this chapter, it was pointed out that former President Mitterrand wanted to bring government closer to the people by way of decentralization and self-management at the local level. One of the more controversial aspects of this policy was permitting cities to establish municipal police forces that would be under the control of the mayor. Such forces existed to a limited degree before World War II, but their number and influence was reduced considerably by the two nationally centralized forces. To date, not all cities have established such a force, relying instead on either the National Police or the National Gendarmerie. Nevertheless, there are approximately 20,000 municipal police that are primarily operating in cities of more than 100,000 people.

Although municipal police are subject to national laws, the mayor is responsible for defining their specific mission. Initially, the principal responsibilities focused on uniform patrol and parking and traffic control. With the increased fear of crime in general and property offenses in particular, some municipalities refined their responsibilities in the areas of crime prevention and law enforcement. Specifically, some municipal police now provide security at schools and recreational events; they regulate street vendors and markets and adult drinking establishments; and they are involved with urban planning and various environmental concerns (Donnelly, 2013; Horton, 1995; Journes, 1993; Kania, 1989; Levy and Ocqueteau, 1987).

In a poll of mayors conducted in 2000, 64 percent considered security a matter for the state, while 31 percent thought it a municipal responsibility (de Maillard and Roche, 2004). From its inception, municipal police were viewed as local agents tasked to deter crime and to seek the support of their community in those efforts. As such, they have actively embraced the use of CCTV as a tool to reduce street crime. It was noted in 2005 that almost 54 percent of the municipal police agencies were carrying various weapons, such as guns, batons, and teargas. It is the mayor of a community who determines if the municipal police should be armed (Donnelly, 2013). It is important to note, however, that in the event the municipal police arrest a suspect, that person must be turned over to the National Police or the National Gendarmerie, because municipal police do not have the authority to conduct a criminal investigation.

In light of the current political climate on security matters, it does not appear that the central government will be surrendering any police powers to municipalities in the near future. Because the role of the municipal police has not been clearly defined at the national level, it has been recognized that steps are needed to control the use of municipal police. Efforts are underway to define their mission more clearly.

Legal Status

Because the police of France are considered civil servants, they are subject to the same civil service regulations as their counterparts in other units of government. Given the nature of their responsibilities, however, they are placed in situations that other civil servants would not generally confront. The kind of authority that the police exercise has led the public to refer to the police as “magistrates on their feet.” This term acknowledges the close working relationship that exists between detectives and the examining magistrates who coordinate criminal investigations. In such investigative situations, the police are accorded special powers in the performance of their duties. As a result, many people find it difficult to make a distinction between an investigating officer and an examining magistrate. Both are viewed as agents of the state who are empowered with the same basic function.

Both the French Code of Criminal Procedure and the French Penal Code discuss the legal status of the police, along with other government agents. One should also keep in mind that the French parliament can pass legislation to amend the codified law. For example, the Security and Liberty Law of 1981 amended both the procedural and penal codes. More recently, the report of the Criminal Justice and Human Rights Commission (1993), chaired by professor Mireille Delmas-Marty, and the report by the Justice Commission (1997), chaired by Pierre Truche, president of the Court of Cassation, led to some significant reforms. In addition, the constitution allows the Council of Ministers to issue decrees and ordinances that have the force of law. Thus, the state is in a position to enhance the police authority with the powers that the government perceives to be vital to the performance of their duties. The police, in turn, view themselves as the principal defenders of the constitutional liberties of the state. Their devotion to this single purpose has provoked a number of comments regarding the relationship the police have with the public.

The Police and the Public

Since the 1960s, the French police have been confronted with a rising crime rate. As is the case in other industrialized countries, the most notable concern involves serious levels of juvenile delinquency. Like other European countries, this problem has focused in part on second- and third-generation immigrants and guest workers. Since the 1970s, particular attention has been directed at the banlieues, or deprived areas, which consist of large housing projects, often located on the outskirts of a city and home to many immigrant groups. These areas suffer from a lack of economic opportunity and a weak educational system. Periodically, rioting erupts in these areas throughout a number of cities in the country. Over the course of the past decade, the police also have had to deal with an enhanced fear of crime among the citizenry, especially as it relates to property offenses.

Increased levels of crime, as well as fear of it, often result in the placement of law and order on the political agenda. France is no exception. While the political right was in power under the leadership of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the strategy was to increase the number of police and to pass stricter law enforcement legislation, such as the Security and Liberty Law of 1981.

When the political left came to power in 1981 under François Mitterrand, the initial strategy called for a reform of the National Police. Essentially two objectives were being proposed. First, the police should focus their attention more on economic crimes and deemphasize their concern for public order maintenance and the collection of political intelligence in the name of national security. Second, greater controls should be placed on the police. Specific suggestions included establishing a code of professional ethics, reforming the Inspector General’s office, regulating certain police practices, and reinforcing the judicial authorities’ responsibility to control police tactics (Levy and Ocqueteau, 1987).

The government, however, abandoned this scheme by 1985. Crime and the public’s fear of it had remained. There was also renewed terrorist activity in the country that precluded the police from reducing their collection of political intelligence. A strategy was adopted to make the police more efficient through modernization. This included increasing the initial training of officers, establishing in-service training, providing police with state-of-the-art equipment, shifting officers from clerical tasks to actual police work, and increasing the police budget by 50 percent over the following five years (“Le Plan de Modernisation,” 1985).

During the 1990s, crime was increasing, in particular, violent crime in immigrant neighborhoods. While police had focused most of their attention on maintaining order, intelligence, and criminal investigations, there was little in the way of prioritizing community policing. As mentioned in the previous chapter, law enforcement in England has long embraced the importance of its police participating in and advocating an active partnership with community policing. This has not been the case in France. Most of France’s national politicians, along with the leadership in the National Police and the National Gendarmerie, have long focused on dirigisme, that is, the state has the principal role in the planning, control, and execution of public safety. Community policing has not been part of this agenda (Donnelly, 2013).

With crime escalating and juvenile delinquency rampant in the public’s view, some areas of the country began to establish collaborative ventures between police and the civil sector. The civil sector turned to local town politicians and educators, community groups, social services, housing authorities, and public transportation. These efforts were referred to as proximity policing. The emphasis was placed on visible police patrols, developing relationships with the citizenry, and a greater concern for the victims of crime.

Proximity policing helped to enhance the role of municipal police and led to the emergence of police auxiliaries. Police auxiliaries are young people in uniform who provide a good deal of public contact, but they do not have the legal authority to arrest people or to conduct investigations. The creation of the police auxiliaries was also viewed as a method to recruit minorities to a career in law enforcement (Body-Gendrot, 2012; Donnelly, 2013).

While proximity policing exists, especially at the municipal level, the concept was never totally embraced by the two national police agencies. It is difficult to change attitudes in many large organizations, especially those in the public sector that have a long history and a tradition of how to implement their mission. When change is attempted, the rank and file often display a good deal of skepticism and a reluctance to embrace new strategies. If change is implemented, the organization needs mid-level managers who have accepted the purpose and value of change and can communicate effectively the benefits to the troops. Without the support of that group, the transformation will be difficult at best and possibly unsuccessful.

During the 2002 presidential election, the public’s concern over crime and delinquency of immigrant youths in particular was a significant issue. To illustrate, the total number of people under investigation by the police rose from 717,116 in 1974 to 906,969 in 2002. This was an increase of 26 percent. When one considers the number of young people (under 18 years of age) who were under investigation during the same time period, the figures increased from 75,846 to 180,382. This was a 137 percent increase that was especially noticeable since the 1990s (de Maillard and Roche, 2004).

Recently, research for the city of Paris has illustrated that 89 percent of the citizens view the issue of crime control as the responsibility of the state. Specifically, this includes public safety and maintaining order, especially as it relates to security and juvenile delinquency issues. Other concerns were the level of sex crimes, organized crime, and drug enforcement. The citizens believe that the National Police should be responsible for these issues (Body-Gendrot, 2012).

The police have had two additional problems that have, in light of the country’s history, aggravated and frustrated their attempts at maintaining order. In May 1968, there were general strikes that were sparked in part by student unrest in the universities. With France’s delicate political structure in a perpetual state of doubt, there was a real concern in some circles that the country might be faced with yet another change in its system of government. Strikes remain a common occurrence in France and are often brought about by organized labor groups and student protests.

The other problem, already alluded to, is the substantial number of terrorist acts in the country. Though in some cases these acts are not specifically directed at the French or their diplomatic position, terrorism nevertheless has been a problem with which the police are expected to contend. Islamic terrorism is a particular concern of the French government. France is now home to approximately 6 million Muslims, primarily Arabic speakers from North Africa, (out of a total population of over 62 million), of which about half hold French citizenship (see Gurfinkiel, 1997). A good deal of the rioting in the aforementioned banlieues had involved Muslim youths. As a result, there has been a heightened effort by the police to improve its intelligence-gathering techniques and to focus more surveillance efforts on Muslim communities in general. It is interesting to note that while civil libertarian groups have voiced concerns over these tactics, the Muslim communities have not been among the vocal critics. It has been suggested that they are more focused on issues of cultural integration and economic opportunity (Laurence and Vaisse, 2006).

Cultural integration and economic opportunity are central features confronting in particular young immigrant Muslim males living in the banlieues. They have not integrated into the society, which many French citizens believe is the root cause of their problems. This kind of concern, of course, is not unique to France. It has been suggested that part of the reason for the lack of integration and the frequent urban unrest is the nature of the communities in which they are being raised. For example, they attend inferior schools, and many drop out without any qualifications. There is often a lack of economic investment in the neighborhoods. They have no advocates to articulate their grievances. Moreover, the government has often not consulted the local people about the social problems confronting their communities. Not surprising, some immigrants feel that they are prevented from competing—socially and politically and in such areas as employment and the economy— because of racism. As such, the young, in particular, feel disenfranchised (Body-Gendrot, 2012; Body-Gendrot, Hough, Kerezsi, Levy, and Snacken, 2014).

The level of crime, social unrest, and terrorist acts are bound to influence how law enforcement perceives the public and how the public develops its attitudes toward the police. Various indicators have been employed to gauge the opinions of both the police and the public. Three have been utilized here in the hope that this highly significant issue can be placed in perspective. What follows is an examination of police recruitment and training, efforts to establish crime-prevention programs, and the opinions of both police and the public regarding the police role in French society.

Recruitment and Training

The French acknowledge that a central feature of police professionalism is the quality of recruitment, training, and educational opportunities extended to members of the police service. The recruitment and training of the National Police and National Gendarmerie are handled separately by each force. The National Police has had little difficulty finding people who are interested in a police career, and they have received a large number of applications from people who have attained a high level of education. In any event, it has been suggested that most recruits—even those who have achieved a high level of education—would not command the salaries they receive if they selected a career outside the police service. Thus, the National Police have not had to conduct vigorous recruitment campaigns.

The National Police have a four-tiered entry scheme: two tiers are designed for uniformed personnel, while the other two are for plainclothes officers. A recruit can enter the force as a uniformed patrol officer. Each recruit must be a French citizen, possess a driver’s license, and meet the minimum height requirements (approximately 5’7”). The person must be of good character and in excellent physical condition. The French have a tendency to place a good deal of emphasis on the physical fitness of the candidate. Moreover, the age requirement is between 21 and 28 years of age. An exception is made for people recruited from the armed services who have not reached the age of 31. The minimum educational requirement is a certificate from elementary school. (Most people receive this at age 14.)

The entrance examination for the uniformed patrol officer includes a physical agility test and a scholastic aptitude test involving basic writing and mathematics skills. Those who are selected attend one of the eight regional training schools of the National Police. Basic training includes eight months at a school with a curriculum emphasizing both professional and physical education components. This is followed by four months of training in the field. If the candidate passes basic training, he or she is assigned to either a town or city police department, or to the Republican Security Company.

The other uniformed entry is that of lieutenant. The nationality, character, and physical fitness requirements are the same for this position as for that of the uniformed patrol officer, but the age limit is lowered to 19. The upper age level remains the same, and an exception again is made regarding those who have served in the armed forces. Vacancies in this rank are filled equally by two kinds of candidates. One-half are selected from the ranks of uniformed patrol. These candidates must have served a minimum of four years in that position to be eligible, and they must be under 35 years of age. The other half are selected from applicants who have obtained a French baccalaureate. (This is roughly equivalent to an associate’s degree in the United States.) All candidates must pass a competitive entrance examination.

The candidate’s period of training lasts 18 months. Nine months are spent in a formal education program at the National Police School for lieutenants at Nice. The subject matter includes professional courses (such as law and police organization) as well as traditional academic disciplines (such as sociology and psychology). If the candidate passes the examinations, the next phase of study includes a one-month stay with each of the uniformed branches of the National Police, the Republican Security Company, and the Police of Paris. Finally, six months of additional training is mandated.

The requirements to join the ranks of the plainclothes inspectors are essentially the same as those for lieutenant. The physical requirements are not as stringent, however. The manner of selecting the candidates is also the same as that for the lieutenants: one-half have spent at least four years in police service, while the remainder held a degree. The inspectors’ training program is conducted at special schools that are located at Toulouse, St. Malo, and Cannes-Ecluse. The program lasts about a year. The courses of instruction include criminology, social psychology, criminalistics, and a number of law classes. Candidates for inspector also spend three months devoted to practical training in the field. Once they have completed their course of study, they will become members of the judicial police.

The final entry level is that of commissioners or chiefs of police. The general requirements are the same as those for detectives. In the case of commissioners, 60 percent are selected from among the candidates who hold a university degree. (This is equivalent to a master’s degree or a law degree in the United States.) The other 40 percent are selected from candidates who have served in the National Police for at least four years. The entrance examination is highly competitive for candidacy and is composed of a written part that includes essays on the political ideas and the social and economic problems of twentieth-century Europe, criminal law and procedure, and administrative law. The oral examination includes a general interview, specific questions on law, and a test of the candidate’s proficiency in a foreign language.

The successful candidates spend one year in training at the National Police College at Saint-Cyr. Courses taken there focus on five areas: (1) social sciences, (2) general police studies, (3) administrative law, (4) physical training, and (5) technical training. The second year of training is spent with each of the major branches of the police service. Candidates who complete the program are then appointed to a branch of the service that they have selected. Undoubtedly, they will eventually administer their own police force.

Although the French admit that their scheme reduces the promotional opportunities for those in the lower grades, they believe that such career disappointments are outweighed by the benefits that accrue to the organization. From their perspective, the multilevel entrance scheme enables the police to tap the creative resources of the university graduate. In turn, this leads to innovative problem-solving for the organization. The police are not unique in this regard, for the French have a tendency to emphasize the importance of obtaining university credentials—especially from their elite universities—for all the upper echelons of the government bureaucracy. Moreover, the university degree has traditionally been viewed as a mark of class distinction.

As was indicated earlier, the National Gendarmerie has a training program of its own. A candidate must be a French citizen, be between the ages of 18 and 35, and pass the psychological aptitude tests. The gendarmerie recruits many of its officers from the armed forces, army reserves, and its own noncommissioned ranks. The noncommissioned officers are usually selected from the ranks of noncommissioned personnel within the military. The gendarmerie has a number of training centers located throughout France at which emphasis is placed on police techniques, military tactics, and physical agility. It has been suggested that the gendarmerie generally attracts a better-educated group of candidates. They also tend to be much more disciplined as a result of their military training. These qualities have led members of the gendarmerie to view themselves as an elite law enforcement corps.

It also should be pointed out that France has a compulsory national service for young men. Since 1971, men have been able to meet this requirement by serving between 12 and 16 months as auxiliary members of the gendarmerie. They are assigned regular duties, except they do not handle public order incidents. These auxiliary gendarmes represent approximately 13 percent of the total force. In 1986, this method of meeting national service was extended to the National Police.

Until 1979, women were restricted to the plainclothes officers’ unit of the National Police. Today, they are also members of the uniformed force. They represent approximately 6 percent of the total number of police serving in the National Police. Prior to 1983, women could only serve in clerical positions in the National Gendarmerie, but they are now recruited as police officers. They presently represent about 2 percent of the gendarmes. They have one restriction in their duties: they may not participate in handling public order incidents (Horton, 1995).

Finally, because of the heightened concern over crime among youths and the issue of Islamic terrorism, a greater effort has been initiated to recruit ethnic minorities to the police service. Unfortunately, they have not had much success with this endeavor. Another strategy has been the introduction of training in communication, conflict resolution, and cultural awareness for both new recruits and mid-level managers who are responsible for implementing any type of community policing program, especially those targeted to ethnic neighborhoods.

Crime Prevention

The French police traditionally have approached their responsibility for crime control through two methods. One was a reaction to events after the crime had occurred, and the other was a proactive or crime-prevention posture designed to control incidents before they happened. From the French perspective, both methods required the utilization of repressive measures to assure success. Although this observation has been expressed by people outside the police service, people within the police ranks also have admitted to the use of such measures.

In the past, the French police have recognized that repressive measures are not always the most effective method for containing and preventing crime. Throughout the 1970s, they embarked upon several new crime-prevention programs that correspond with tactics found in such countries as the United States, England, and Sweden. Among the crime-prevention measures introduced were operations that significantly increased the number of police and gendarmes assigned to high-crime areas. The plan involved saturating an area that included a number of public buildings, with the goal of reducing the number of burglaries and muggings in the area. Thefts of automobiles (and of property from them) had also increased significantly. Officers affix to parked cars printed notices explaining how the owner can safeguard the car and its contents. Similar notices are posted in areas frequented by tourists, such as hotel lobbies.

Two additional crime-prevention programs were introduced in 1975. One was called “Tranquility-Vacations.” Throughout the summer, but especially in August, a large number of people take vacations. Their deserted apartments have been prime targets for burglaries. “Tranquility-Vacations” intensified the surveillance of these buildings with a good deal of success, not only in preventing crime but also in apprehending criminals. In that same year, the police launched a campaign to protect the elderly. This involved crime-prevention seminars designed to educate the elderly to the unique dangers with which they are confronted.

A brochure was produced the following year that provided information about and techniques for protecting one’s residence. The police have been assisted in this kind of endeavor by insurance companies and security firms. Moreover, the police also have been active in providing the business community with programs designed to protect their merchandise. Finally, like many police departments throughout the industrialized world, the French have returned to the establishment of the beat patrol system. Today, more officers are patrolling a specific beat either on foot, bicycle, or motorcycle with the goal of reestablishing closer contacts in the community.

Despite these efforts, thefts of (and from) automobiles, ordinary theft, and burglaries remain the principal crime concerns of the police, while violent crimes remain fairly infrequent. Only recently has the general public become aware of the difficulty police face in solving many property crimes—especially without sufficient information. This in part explains the heightened fear of crime among the French. It also explains the increased interest in personal security measures, as evidenced by the purchase of burglar alarms and reinforced doors and windows. In addition, insurance companies are now requiring that businesses utilize the services and devices of security firms.

It should be noted that France was late in embracing the use of CCTV as a crime-prevention tool. More recently, there has been a significant increase in the use of cameras by French municipalities and the railway company. It has been suggested that this interest was prompted more as a strategy for addressing concerns associated with terrorism (see Wyvekens in Crawford, 2009). Newer research that focused exclusively on Paris found that 88 percent of the citizens supported the use of CCTV in the subways, on buses, and in public spaces (Body-Gendrot, 2012). Finally, there has also been a heightened sensitivity to security issues in the design or redesign of public spaces when urban renewal programs are planned.

By the 1980s, it was acknowledged that crime prevention was not and could not be solely the responsibility of the police. In fact, there tends to be agreement among the French that crime is the result of failed social policies coupled with an inability among many families to provide a moral foundation for their children. Crime prevention requires the cooperation of social service agencies that are generally found at the local level, the support of the private sector, and a degree of involvement by the citizenry. As a result, crime-prevention committees have been formed in virtually every department, with more than 700 committees established throughout the country (Journes, 1993).

The Interministerial Committee on Cities Policy works with the local committees on funding various crime-prevention projects. The prefect for the department serves as the link between the central and local government. The crime-prevention programs that have received funding include those for victim support, mediation and reparation of victims, work with offenders in the form of community service, initiatives on drugs, and developments with community policing. Community policing has tended to emphasize patrolling high-crime urban areas in pairs, either on foot or motorcycle. The police have established road safety and motorcycle training programs, distributed crime-prevention information about theft (in particular, car theft), and given presentations on crime prevention for the elderly. Specific crime-prevention measures also have been directed at the juvenile population. These will be discussed in the section devoted to juvenile justice.

It should also be pointed out that the issue of domestic abuse has received attention only in the last few decades. It was not until 1989 that the first major campaign raised a public awareness about domestic violence. The leadership for this came through various women’s groups and the government’s secretary of state for women. This led to the country’s first domestic violence legislation in 1994. This has also led to a greater awareness of the problem of child abuse. With particular reference to domestic violence, the police introduced several initiatives. They include making the police more aware of the problem through police training that includes the involvement of other agencies, increasing the number of female police officers, developing crime-prevention policies that focus on the concerns of victims in general and women in particular, and establishing new cooperative efforts to work with other public and voluntary services (Horton, 1995).

Public and Police Perceptions of Law Enforcement

The most common view expressed about the relationship between the police and the people of France is that it is one of strained tolerance. It has been suggested that the reason for citizen dislike of the police is partly political in nature. The French police perceive themselves as the guardians of French liberty and the protectors of the Fifth Republic. At times, there have been large groups of citizens who have wished to retain their freedom, but in a communist or socialist form, and they have been quite vocal in their opposition to the Fifth Republic and the kind of political, social, and economic principles it represents. Such convictions are bound to lead to antagonistic incidents between those segments of the public and the police. Some officers admit sensing a dislike and distrust on the part of the public; nevertheless, they have a responsibility to protect the nation. Public image building is considered a secondary concern, and as was indicated earlier, this public attitude has not affected attempts to recruit candidates to the police service.

Indeed, the French police possess many of the powers that often are associated with a totalitarian regime. Although the powers may be available, the issue is whether they are utilized in a totalitarian manner to suppress individual freedoms. In his book, The Police of Paris, Philip John Stead concluded with the following statement:

[The bitterest enemies of the Paris police] must concede that the city’s frank, free enjoyment of the pleasures of the mind is still whole. Neither Lieutenants-General nor Prefects of Police, with whatever arbitrary powers they may have been invested, have stifled the spirit of liberty. The “police state” is still the land of Montaigne and Voltaire, of Moliere and Montesquieu, of Rabelais and Hugo. It is still the land of 1789, of 1830, of 1848, and 1870. It is the land of 1944. Those who have lived in real police states will hardly be disposed to regard France as one. (1957)

Although this comment was written more than 55 years ago, it appears to be applicable today. The present police system of France mirrors the country’s political culture. There is, on the one hand, a deep attachment to personal liberty. On the other hand, there is an abiding faith in authority. If it were possible to curtail the powers of the French police, one would think it would have happened with the victory of the socialist president, Mitterrand. Although he initially introduced plans to reform the police (including some of their tactics), such plans were quickly set aside in favor of making the police more efficient in their law enforcement and order maintenance tasks.

Judiciary

It was pointed out in the chapter on England that King Henry II was largely responsible for developing the common law tradition by creating the necessary judicial machinery to administer it. Henry was able to accomplish this feat because he, along with the help of some of his predecessors, had undertaken the delicate process of consolidating royal political authority throughout the kingdom. As English monarchs claimed royal hegemony over the country, the common law and the royal administration of justice was firmly established during the medieval period.

Throughout the medieval period, France was politically decentralized. The French king’s political power was limited to the area around Paris known as the Ile de France, while the rest of the country was controlled by the grand seigneurs (nobility). The absence of a centralized political authority in France had important implications for the legal system and the administration of justice.

There were basically four kinds of authorities that administered justice in medieval France. The ecclesiastical courts had jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the church, crimes committed by the clergy, and crimes that fell within its jurisdiction, irrespective of who might commit them (for example, adultery and heresy). Because the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) forbade the clergy from participating in trials that shed blood, some defendants who were found guilty in ecclesiastical courts had to be bound over to a secular court in order to have their sentences imposed and executed.

Another judicial authority was the communal court. Communal courts were found in the free cities. Although they were primarily concerned with commercial matters, they also handled civil and criminal matters within their territorial jurisdiction.

It was assumed throughout the medieval period that large landowners had a right to administer justice in their territory. This right was a characteristic of feudalism, which was the dominant economic and social system of the time. Thus, the principal source of justice was found in the seignorial courts of the great landowners. The law that was administered in these courts was essentially the local custom of the region. Because there were notable differences between regions, there was a lack of uniformity in the law.

The king of France also had the right to exercise judicial authority, for like the grand seigneurs, he was a feudal lord. Royal justice, however, was essentially limited to the king’s land holdings around Paris. By the twelfth century, the legal position of the king began to change. There appeared at that time a popular theory arguing that the king was the source of all justice. This idea had its roots in Roman law, but the study of this law was abandoned following the collapse of the Roman Empire. It was not until the twelfth century that Roman law was rediscovered and introduced as one of the principal sources in the study of law on the continent of Europe.

As the French kings began to assume greater political control over their kingdom, their legal position was gradually enhanced to such an extent that they were sought out to administer justice in their Parlement (which consisted of a group of royal advisors who sat as the king’s judicial tribunal). Appeals to the Parlement improved the king’s political position further and gradually reduced the judicial position of the seigneurial courts. Toward the end of the thirteenth century, Parlement was divided into four courts in order to handle the increased caseload. The Court of Requests was responsible for petitions to the Parlement and to determine which court was appropriate to hear a case. The Chamber of Pleas heard most crown cases. The Court of Inquests entertained cases that were largely determined by written documents. Finally, the Tournelle was responsible for most criminal cases.

It was initially viewed as an honor to have one’s case heard in a royal court. By the sixteenth century, however, all important cases were entertained in royal courts. This was deemed appropriate because of the king’s enhanced position throughout the kingdom. With the increase in cases, provincial parlements were established to assist in the administration of royal justice. These parlements were equal to but independent from the Paris Parlement. Because of the variations in local legal custom, the provincial parlements were in a better position to consider the unique legal characteristics of a region when administering royal justice. Unfortunately, the provincial parlements were to prove divisive in the monarchy’s attempt to unify the country. Ordinances that were applicable in one province might not have the same weight in another. As a result, chaos resulted that was not resolved until after the French Revolution. Thus, a royal court system was established throughout France by the eighteenth century. The central problem facing these courts was that they were not administering the same law.

As was the case in England, the clergy served as the first legal advisers to the kings and grand seigneurs of France. At a time when most of the population, including the nobility, was largely illiterate, many of the clergy could read and write. Some of them were trained in (or at least familiar with) canon law. Canon law represented the legislation and legal opinions of the Roman Catholic Church. It was a complete legal system that was utilized at times by the various medieval kingdoms of Europe when they lacked a coherent unified legal system.

Dependence on the clergy for legal advice began to wane on the continent of Europe with the rediscovery of Roman law. What was actually being rediscovered and revived were the law books of Justinian (483–565), the Byzantine emperor from 527 to 565. Compiled during the sixth century, these books or codes had been lost for 500 years. They were brought to the University of Bologna, the premier center for the study of law on the continent, in the early twelfth century.

Justinian’s Code, or the Corpus Juris Civilis, offered students a systematic view of law that was devoid of church doctrine; it was a secular codified system. Students from across Europe were attracted to Bologna to study this secular law. Once they had completed their studies, they either served as legal counsel to their family or gained employment with the king or a grand seigneur. The introduction of laypersons who were knowledgeable in law ended the dominant position of the clergy as judges and legal counsel.

By the thirteenth century, an occupational distinction was being made among French lawyers. The avoue served as a client’s legal agent, while an avocat specialized in presenting oral arguments before a court. In comparison to the English, the avoue offered the kinds of services that were performed by a solicitor, whereas the avocat offered the skills associated with a barrister.

Another point of comparison between England and France was the tradition each brought to the study of law. It was explained in 

Chapter 1

 that early English law students spent most of their time learning the law in the courtroom. Because the common law had no definitive text that could be studied, the English law student studied the law in action by observing courtroom procedure. This was supplemented by reading the decisions of previous cases. It was not until the nineteenth century that the common law was studied in a university setting, and this method was not popularized until the twentieth century.

In France, as well as other continental countries, the study of law was undertaken in a university. This tradition had its origins in twelfth-century Bologna and differed significantly from the study of law in England. The law that was studied on the continent was considered a science, and the principles of that legal science were found in authoritative texts, the first of these being Justinian’s Code. Moreover, like the study of philosophy and theology, the study of law emphasized the analysis of the text. The purpose of this exercise was to discover general truths that had universal and transnational application. Thus, the law studied on the continent of Europe was more philosophical in content. The student learned to understand how law might become the model for social organization and intercourse and to grasp the essence of justice. The student was not trained in legal techniques or the practical aspects of law. The law professors considered their responsibility to be one of imparting an understanding of the law as a Sollen (what ought to be) rather than a Sein (what is done in fact). Therefore, an understanding of legal principles prevailed over the training of courtroom techniques. This approach to legal studies continues to this day and illustrates one of the marked differences in legal education between the common law system in England and the civil law system in France.

Organization and Administration of the Courts

There are two main branches or kinds of courts within the French legal system. The administrative courts are responsible for supervising the government. They entertain citizen complaints and attempt to balance the delicate relationship that exists when the state’s general interests and the citizen’s individual rights come into conflict. The other branch, known as the ordinary courts, handles the civil and criminal litigation. Both branches of the system have a separate court hierarchy. For our purposes, the five-tiered hierarchy of the ordinary courts is of particular interest. Before this court system is described, however, it may prove beneficial to explain the role of two additional judicial offices, which are not a part of the ordinary court hierarchy but have a significant responsibility to the administration of justice.

Ministry of Justice

The Ministry of Justice is headed by the minister of justice, a member of the Council of Ministers. The minister’s interest in the criminal justice system focuses on three areas: the correctional system, the selection and appointment of magistrates, and the general administration of the law. The last two responsibilities are of interest here.

The term “magistrate” is used to describe judges, procurators, and officials of the central administration of justice. According to the constitution, French judges are guaranteed independence in the performance of their judicial functions and are assured permanence in office. The minister of justice plays a role in the selection and appointment of judges. The minister, however, does not control or dominate the process, for judges are part of the French civil service. According to Article 65 of the constitution, the High Council of the Judiciary is mandated to make specific judicial appointments, including that of judges to the Court of Cassation, first presidents to the courts of appeal, and presidents of the courts of major jurisdiction. The High Council of the Judiciary includes the president of France, the minister of justice, five judges from the civil courts, five judges from the criminal courts, one judge from the administrative courts, one member of the Public Ministry, and three people who are not judges or members of Parliament. The selection of candidates to other courts is made by the minister of justice on the advice of the High Council of the Judiciary.

Like judges, procurators are part of the civil service. Although procurators do not represent the interests of the state at a trial, they are responsible to the Ministry of Justice. The minister of justice appoints people to the Public Ministry and has the ultimate authority to discipline procurators. It should be pointed out that the High Council of the Judiciary plays a consultative role to the ministry in the appointment of procurators. When the High Council of the Judiciary meets for this purpose, its composition is different from when it offers advice on the appointment of judges. For the selection of procurators, the High Council consists of the president of France, the minister of justice, five members of the Public Ministry, one judge of the civil and criminal courts, and three independent people.

The members of the central administration of justice, the Chancellery (a part of the Ministry of Justice), is responsible for the general administration of the law. This is the other administrative issue with which the Ministry of Justice is concerned, and it is of particular interest to us at this time. Chancellery members draft statutes, publish reports on judicial decisions, develop statistical studies on the administration of justice, maintain personnel files on all magistrates, and prepare the budget for the administration of justice. They also are responsible for the administration and supervision of the prisons.

Finally, it should be pointed out that the Ministry has an Inspector General. This Office is responsible for inspecting the various departments or units within the Ministry of Justice and all of the courts, with the exception of the Court of Cassation. The minister of justice can also assign specific tasks that involve an assessment of any aspect of the judiciary. In 1988, the Modernization Commission was established under the direction of the Inspector General. The Commission is responsible for encouraging the introduction of modern administrative techniques throughout the judicial system.

The Constitutional Council

In the United States, the Supreme Court has the principal responsibility of ruling on the constitutionality of all laws. This kind of judicial review is not practiced in France. The ordinary courts, in addition to the administrative courts, have refused to entertain this kind of legislative review. This decision was established in 1789, and with the exception of two incidents in 1851, French judges have not deviated from that position. Two kinds of arguments have been offered to explain this situation. One points out that courts are essentially administrative organs of the state and not considered a separate branch of government, as that concept is used when discussing the idea of governmental separation of powers. In light of this, it has been suggested that the absence of judicial review is based on the belief that “no judicial body be ‘this keeper of the nation’s conscience’” (Tallon, 1979). Another rationale is based on history. Prior to the French Revolution, French judges wielded a good deal of power and independent discretion. The judges were essentially on the losing side of the Revolution. Since that time, the legislative branch has avoided granting the judiciary a role in the development of policy, which is clearly a feature of judicial review (Jacob, Blankenburg, Kritzer, Provine, and Sanders, 1996).

The French have a Constitutional Council composed of nine members. Council members serve a nine-year term that is not renewable; one-third of the membership is appointed every three years. The president of France appoints three people, and the presidents of the Senate and the National Assembly are each responsible for selecting three members. In addition, all former presidents of the Republic serve as ex officio members.

The council has two responsibilities. One is handling election complaints in cases of irregularities or disagreements in the outcome. Another (more important for our purposes) is determining the constitutionality of legislation passed in parliament. Access to the council is quite limited; neither citizens nor members of the legal profession can request that a piece of legislation be reviewed on the grounds that they consider it unconstitutional. Constitutional issues are brought before the council from one of five sources: (1) from the council’s inception, (2) from the President of the Republic, (3) from the premier, (4) from the president of the Senate, and (5) from the president of the National Assembly. Since 1974, an action can also be introduced by 60 members of parliament. The council’s role is limited to acts passed in parliament, and the issue must be brought to their attention before it is signed into law by the president. Having explained the role of the Ministry of Justice and the Constitutional Council, a description of the hierarchy of France’s ordinary courts follows (see 

Figure 2.4

).

Court of Cassation

The Court of Cassation is the highest court for civil and criminal appeals in France. The word “cassation” comes from the French casser, meaning “to shatter.” In the context of judicial proceedings, this is figuratively what the court does, for it is responsible for ruling on appeals that involve a point of law. The Court of Cassation either can agree with the lower courts’ original interpretation of the law, or it can quash (or shatter) the opinion of the lower court and have the case retried. Because, as a rule, the court entertains only issues involving a point of law, the entire case is not heard by the court. Usually, the court is interested only in determining if the lower court interpreted the law correctly. Thus, the principal role of the court is to assure that the law is interpreted uniformly throughout France.

The court is composed of six chambers. Three handle civil cases, while the others entertain social, commercial, and criminal matters, respectively. Each chamber has a judge who is called the president, and there is a first president who serves as the chief justice for the entire court. There are slightly more than 120 judges serving this court, and they are divided into two categories. The number of senior permanent appeals judges (or conseillers) is about 85. There are also approximately 40 career judges who are appointed to the court for a period of up to 10 years. They assist the senior judges of the court and are referred to as advisers. Following their term, they return to positions on a court of appeal. Each case heard in the court is handled by a minimum of seven judges and two advisers.

Courts of Appeal

There are 35 courts of appeal that handle civil and criminal appeals from the lower courts. Each court is responsible for an area that usually encompasses between two and four departments. The issues brought before an appeals court can involve a point of law or some factual discrepancy in a case. Generally, for those cases in which the appeal is based solely on fact, this court will serve as the final arbiter. Issues involving law, however, can be appealed further to the Court of Cassation. Courts of appeal consist of four chambers that specialize in civil, social, correctional, and juvenile cases on appeal. Each case is handled by a three-judge panel (a presiding judge or president and two judges of appeal or conseillers).

Figure 2.4

 Organization of the Ordinary French Courts

Courts of Assize

In each of the 96 departments of France, a court of assize sits with appellate and original jurisdiction in criminal matters. When the court hears appeals from a lower court, three judges handle the matter. It is also the court of first instance for all major felonies, which are referred to as crimes. As a tribunal of first instance, the court includes a panel of three judges (a presiding judge or president and two associate judges or assesseurs) and nine lay jurors. There are a few exceptions to the aforementioned composition of a court of assize. Some cases involving terrorism or drug dealing are handled by a three-judge panel without lay jurors. Assize courts are staffed by judges from the courts of appeal. Judges from local courts also can serve on a court of assize, but the presiding judge is always a member of a court of appeal. Courts of assize are divided into two chambers. One handles adult cases, while the other is responsible for juvenile offenders, usually between the ages of 16 and 17, accused of committing a serious crime.

Courts of Major Jurisdiction

The next tier in the court hierarchy consists of the 181 courts of major jurisdiction. Each court is divided into three chambers. When judges sit to hear a civil matter, the court is called a civil court. Courts of major jurisdiction have unlimited jurisdiction in civil matters throughout the department in which they are located. When judges sit to hear a criminal matter, the court is called a correctional court. Courts of major jurisdiction handle serious misdemeanors, which are called délits. The court also sits as a juvenile court. Three-judge panels handle both the civil and criminal cases that come before the court. In 1995, the law was amended to permit a single judge to hear certain types of délits. These included some traffic offenses, the use of soft drugs, and the misuse of credit cards or checking accounts.

Courts of Minor Jurisdiction

Last in the hierarchy are the 473 courts of minor jurisdiction. Each court is divided into two tribunals. Civil matters are heard in the civil tribunal. Minor misdemeanors and violations, which are called contraventions, are handled in the police tribunal. Contraventions include minor assaults, breaches of the peace, and traffic violations. This is the only court in the hierarchy that has a single judge sitting to decide a case.

The Legal Profession

For many years, a definite hierarchy has been established among members of the French legal profession. Law professors, magistrates, and avocats are distinguished not only by their professional titles but also by training, professional relationship, and responsibilities to the law. The more visible members of the legal profession are further divided into three groups: judges, procurators, and avocats. Members of each group have been professionally trained in the law. The law professors are considered at the pinnacle of the profession; their responsibilities will be discussed in the section concerning the French method of legal education.

Judges

French judges are members of the tripartite judiciary. The other two groups are procurators and members of the central administration of justice, who work for the Ministry of Justice. As is the case in other civil law countries, the method of selecting and training judges in France is significantly different from that found in common law countries such as England and the United States.

To become a judge, one must first obtain a law degree (a license in law) from a university law school. Typically, one must then gain admission to the National School for the Judiciary at Bordeaux. This is the legal profession’s grande école. France has a number of grandes écoles, which are highly selective institutions that train the future professional elite of the country. The National School for the Judiciary is the special school designed to train people for careers as magistrates. This method of training is relatively new because the school has been in existence only since 1959. It complements the tradition long established in France of creating specialized professional schools; the school is modeled along the lines of the others. This method of instruction is a logical extension of the belief that French judges, as a part of the national civil service, need a specific kind of theoretical orientation and practical training before they are allowed to serve the state in this fashion. The school provides both scholarly and apprenticeship training components that take about three years to complete. Upon completing the program, the successful candidate joins the ranks of the judiciary as either a judge or a procurator.

This system enables French judges to begin their professional careers at a fairly young age. They are usually in their late twenties, which is noticeably younger than their colleagues in common law countries, who are often in their forties or fifties before they begin a career on the bench. Moreover, unlike their colleagues of the common law, French judges, for the most part, begin and end their legal careers as magistrates. It also should be noted that the National School for the Judiciary has a branch office in Paris that is responsible for all of its continuing education courses.

In recent years, because of the need to increase the number of judges serving in the criminal courts, some people have been recruited to the judiciary. People who have a legal background and at least 10 years of professional experience compete to secure a position. To gain entry, they must pass a written and oral examination.

In addition to the selection and training process, the nature of the job and the responsibilities of a judge also attract a certain type of personality to the profession. It has been suggested that people attracted to a career on the bench in France have a tendency to be unambitious (David, 1972). What is being alluded to is the fact that the position of a judge offers a fairly tranquil life, especially early in a career, when a judge is most likely to be assigned to a provincial city. Because judges are part of the civil service, their salary and tenure in office is secure. With the exception of the courts of minor jurisdiction, a French judge never has to rule alone on a decision. Thus, there is a collegiality in rendering a judicial opinion. Because the decisions are made secretly and issued without identification, each judge retains anonymity regarding his or her thoughts on a particular decision. The avoidance of undue pressure and public notoriety is enhanced further by the fact that judges in the ordinary courts do not rule on constitutional or administrative issues (which are more apt to attract public attention).

As more women enrolled in higher education in recent decades, they have gained a considerable presence in the legal profession. They represent a majority in the number of entrants to the National School for the Judiciary and those recruited who have already had a professional career in the law. To illustrate, women made up 28.5 percent of the trial judges in 1982, but by 2003, they represented 52.2 percent (Bell, 2006). While some women pursue careers as procurators, it has been suggested that the vast majority prefer a career on the bench, because the work schedule is more beneficial for those raising a family.

The manner in which judges render a decision is also of interest. A central characteristic of the judicial method is a judge’s interest in and commitment to maintaining the theoretical purity and harmony of the legal system. Related to this kind of judicial posturing is the fact that a judge’s professional career commences after the completion of theoretical training at the university and the National School for the Judiciary. This process has a profound impact on the way a judge perceives the law. It has been suggested that, within the legal profession, a judge has a much closer affinity to a law professor (the disinterested scholar of the law) than with a practicing attorney whose approach to the law is more pragmatic (David, 1972).

The commitment to theoretical purity and harmony of the legal system is best exemplified by the form of judicial decisions. Unlike English and American decisions, the French render rather abstract and brief rulings. According to legal scholars, these characteristics are largely attributable to philosophical and historical differences between the civil law and common law systems (Goutal, 1976). Regarding the abstract nature of a French decision, the French employ deductive logic rather than the induction or analogy usually utilized in common law countries. Because the codes are the principal source of French law, a French opinion begins with a general principle found in a code or a statute. The decision is designed to show clearly how it is in complete accord with the law. This method reduces significantly the likelihood that a judge will rely upon unwritten principles and be accused of arbitrariness.

Although French judges rely upon precedent, they are not obliged to do so. The principle of stare decisis does not exist. Actually, stare decisis is unnecessary because of the approach taken in rendering decisions. For example, when the Court of Cassation adds a new interpretation to the law, it simply states the new ruling. Given their authoritative position, judges do not feel compelled to justify their ruling by searching for precedents. Their attitude implies that although the court had never handed down such a ruling before, the ruling, nevertheless, should have been obvious all along. Thus, the fact that the court had not addressed itself to the issue before does not really make the opinion new or unique.

Unlike judges in the United States and England, French judges are required by law to offer a written opinion in a case. However, the decisions are noticeably brief. Whereas judges in the United States and England are apt to write lengthy decisions explaining the legislative history of an issue and a rationale for their opinion, French judges often render an opinion in less than one page. In fact, there is a rule that the decision of the court with respect to a specific legal issue be phrased in a single sentence. If more than one issue is a central feature of the case, then each issue is accorded a separate sentence in the decision. This tradition dates back to 1790, when the new legal system was established. Before the Revolution, judges were abusive and arbitrary in the exercise of their authority. As civil servants, however, judges of the post-Revolutionary era thought it advisable to be cautious in the exercise of their judicial powers. This attitude is illustrated by the judges’ penchant for brief, impersonal opinions. Moreover, the fact that the decision is an anonymous ruling, which does not include dissenting opinions, further enhances the desire to maintain both judicial anonymity and collegiality. The absence of dissenting opinions also is designed to strengthen the authority of the decision (Wells, 1994).

According to Article 64 of the Constitution, “The President of the Republic shall be the guarantor of the independence of the judicial authority. . . . Judges shall be irremovable.” Thus, the basic principle of an independent judiciary is assured in the Constitution. A practical illustration of the manner in which judicial independence is carried out is with the selection of judges. As mentioned earlier, when the High Council of the Judiciary is selecting or promoting judges, it is composed of a number of judges. While there remain a significant number of political people on the Council, that number has decreased, and the number of judges has increased in recent years (Elliott and Vernon, 2000).

It should also be noted that while the Constitution suggests that a judge cannot be removed from office, this is not the case. If a judge is accused of serious malfeasance, the matter would be brought before the High Council of the Judiciary. In this context, the Council would sit as a court with the president of the Court of Cassation serving as the presiding judge. Neither the president of France nor the prime minister, both regular members of the High Council, serve when the Council is sitting as a court. This is another example of attempting to remove the appearance of politics in matters pertaining to the judiciary. While various sanctions exist, such as reprimand and demotion, the ultimate one is dismissal from office.

Procurators

The procurators are another important branch of the French judiciary. Whereas judges are the magistrats du siege (the sitting magistrates), the procurators are commonly referred to as magistrats debout or le parquet (standing magistrates or “of the floor” rather than the bench). They undergo the same kind of training as judges (that is, a university legal education and further study at the National School for the Judiciary), and they are civil servants who work for the Public Ministry. Although it is unusual for a judge to request a transfer to the Public Ministry, it is not uncommon for a procurator to become a judge. Because both have been trained as members of the judiciary, this is not considered unusual.

The purpose and functions of the procurator are sometimes misinterpreted, especially by students of the common law tradition. Members of the Public Ministry appear to be a part of the executive branch of government and, thus, the defenders of that branch. Through the Ministry of Justice, the executive appoints, promotes, disciplines, and discharges members of the Public Ministry. Procurators are organized in a hierarchy that corresponds to the court system. Procurators serving in lower courts are expected to comply with the orders that they receive from superiors who are assigned to appellate courts. The principal responsibility of procurators is to prosecute actions on behalf of the state.

These characteristics suggest that procurators are agents of the executive. This, however, is not the case, because procurators do not defend the interests of the state. Their responsibility is not to secure a conviction; it is to assure that justice is done and that society’s interests are served. Thus, a distinction is made between the interests of the state or executive and those of society. Procurators are the guardians of the latter. When participating in the administration of justice, procurators enjoy an autonomy that befits their status as members of the judiciary. This is illustrated by the fact that when the state is involved in litigation before a civil or an administrative court, it must retain a lawyer to represent its side in the suit. The state does not turn the matter over to the Public Ministry to defend the state’s specific interests.

There are two kinds of prosecutors in the French system. The state procurator acts on behalf of the public. If in the course of committing an offense, the accused has caused a person to suffer personal harm, which may be of either a physical or psychological nature, that person may bring a civil action against the accused. Counsel for the victim of this personal harm can appear in the criminal court and be considered a prosecutor for the civil party. Counsel for a victim is present primarily to argue for his or her client’s right to collect compensation for damages.

Thus, although it is a civil claim, it can be heard concurrently with the criminal case. The victim, therefore, is considered a separate prosecuting party in the proceedings. In light of the fact that the victim has become a party to the proceedings, that person is prohibited from serving as a witness. This can obviously be a drawback to a procurator, whose case may be dependent on the victim’s testimony. In the event the victim died, that person’s heirs can also bring civil action. It should also be pointed out that the civil action can not only be brought against the accused but also against his heirs and any person who might be responsible for the offender, such as the accused’s parents. Although it is less expensive and more efficient to attach a civil action to the criminal proceedings, because the victim benefits from the procurator’s investigation into the case, it is important to note that a victim has the option of bringing a separate action in a civil court. Once this decision is made, however, it cannot be withdrawn in favor of having the matter heard concurrently with the criminal case.

In most cases, a public procurator decides whether a suit should be initiated. The manner and extent to which procurators utilize discretion became a significant issue with the increase in crime and legislation creating additional offenses. Some critics have argued that this discretion should be eliminated by introducing the principle of mandatory prosecution that is found in other civil law countries. Mandatory prosecution requires the initiation of proceedings against the accused if guilt has been sufficiently established. If a procurator declines to prosecute, the victim can bring the matter before a trial court as a civil party complaint. Such an action thus forces the state procurator to initiate a public action. Victims are discouraged from bringing unjust claims or suits that lack sufficient grounds by a law permitting the accused individual, who is discharged following a trial, to initiate his or her own action against the civil party.

Another relatively new manner in which procurators can exercise discretion is in the mediation process of some criminal cases. Since 1993, this approach has been made available to victims and offenders who agree to this kind of procedure. In the event mediation fails, the procurator can still initiate a prosecution. Additional legislation was approved to expand the use of the mediation process. For example, all participants in the process have the right to a lawyer, and a legal aid scheme is provided for those who are indigent. The procurator has an important role to play in the mediation process, for he or she has the power to impose various kinds of sanctions that include compensation, fines, suspension of a driver’s license, and community service. It should be pointed out that any order issued by a procurator must be approved by the court that would have entertained the case if the victim and offender had not agreed to mediation (Elliott and Vernon, 2000). Granting this kind of discretion is not considered unusual in the French context, in part because procurators are members of the judiciary.

Defense Counsel

Until 1971, lawyers were divided into two groups: avocats and avoues. They were similar to English barristers and solicitors in terms of their specific legal duties. Following lengthy discussions and a good deal of pressure from the Ministry of Justice, however, the two professions merged in 1971. Today, the person who can represent a client in court and plead a case is called an avocat. Like other members of the legal profession, avocats must possess a license in law from a university law school. The law school graduate must also take a competency examination and then register with the local bar association, of which there are 180 throughout the country. Once a qualified individual is admitted to a local bar association, he or she can practice law throughout the country. There is one exception to this rule: there is a highly specialized group of senior avocats that are qualified to practice before the Court of Cassation. Finally, all certified law graduates serve as an apprentice avocat for a probationary period of at least three years. During the apprenticeship, an avocat must attend the special training center established by the court of appeal in his or her region.

Until relatively recently, there was no national bar association in France. Each local association was independent and autonomous and had the authority to discipline its members. Legislation that went into effect in 1992 created a National Bar Council. It has been accorded three responsibilities: (1) to represent the profession before government authorities, (2) to establish a degree of uniformity in the rules and regulations developed by the local bar associations, and (3) to supervise the regional training centers (West, 1991).

Many avocats practice alone, but a change in legislation in the early 1970s permitted the formation of partnerships. Such partnerships have become more popular, but the associations are small when compared with those established in the United States. To some extent, avocats specialize in a particular branch of law, and the partnerships facilitate the arrangement. Avocats have been criticized by both judges and clients. The criticisms are similar to those that have been leveled against their counterparts in the United States. Clients question the competence and the cost of legal service, whereas judges complain about the lack of preparation for trials and the level of professional competence.

It was suggested that the profession of avocat was not as financially lucrative as it was during the early part of this century (Olivier, 1979). Part of the reason for this was the fact that another group within the hierarchy of the legal profession, conseils juridiques, handled most of the commercial and corporate legal work. That situation changed, because the 1992 legislation that created the National Bar Council also merged the professions of avocat and conseil juridique. Prior to this change, avocats had exclusive rights of audience in courts and could provide legal advice, while conseils juridiques were limited to providing legal advice and preparing legal documents. The 1992 legislation created a single profession, in which members are known as avocats, and all have rights of audience in courts, to provide legal advice, and to prepare legal documents.

The Jury

Although the jury was utilized in certain regions of medieval France, it was totally abandoned by the fifteenth century. Following the French Revolution, the jury was reintroduced, but its use was limited to the courts of assize, which handle the serious criminal cases. Critics of the French jury allege that it is a contradiction in that it has little impact on the administration of justice. Scholars point out that the jury is not rooted in French legal tradition; rather, it was borrowed from the British during the nineteenth century when judicial and political reforms were quite prevalent. It has been argued that the introduction of the jury was more of a political achievement than a judicial reform (Dunbar, 1968). Moreover, it has been pointed out that the jury illustrates the acceptance of universal suffrage because jurors are selected from voting lists (David, 1972). In addition, it was originally viewed as a method of assuring that the public would share the burden of issuing capital punishment sanctions with the judges. Capital punishment, however, was abolished in France in 1981.

To serve on a jury, a person must be a French citizen, at least 23 years of age, able to read and write in French, and not be considered incapacitated or incompatible. People who have a criminal record or have been condemned to confinement or arrest are considered incapacitated. Among those considered incompatible are members of parliament, the Council of Ministers, magistrates, police, and military personnel.

Selection occurs through an annual list that is established from the voting rolls for each court of assize. Before the opening of the court session, the names of 35 jurors and 10 alternates are selected from the list through a lottery presided over by the president of the court. On the day of a trial, the jurors’ names are drawn from an urn. The defense counsel can challenge five jurors, while the procurator can reject four. The reasons for the challenges need not be given. When nine names are selected, the jurors take their seats on either side of the three judges and are sworn in by the president of the court. A few alternate jurors are also selected in the event that they are needed.

Although jurors are mandated, along with the judges, to decide the ultimate fate of the defendant, they are considered an appendage of the judges. They are placed in this inferior position because they do not have access to the written record of the trial (which contains most of the evidence in a French trial), and they are not provided with a summing up of the law before deliberations commence. Thus, they are dependent on the judges for explanations of the law and many of the facts of the case on which they sit in judgment.

Legal Education

The French approach to legal education is strikingly different from that found in either England or the United States. This is largely attributed to the traditional approach that the French have taken toward higher education in general. The manner in which the current system of legal education is organized has been evolving since the post-Revolutionary period and is typical of the continental approach to higher education. France’s universities are public institutions that are ultimately administered by the national government through the Ministry of National Education.

Students enter a university when they are approximately 18 years of age, after they have completed their high school education with an award of the baccalaureate diploma. Legal studies have been a traditional part of the general curriculum in French universities, and a significant number of students select it as a course of instruction. Students who select the legal studies curriculum are not necessarily planning on a career in law. Many plan to enter the civil service and view the law as an excellent preparation for that career.

Because the students are fairly young and inexperienced, the law curriculum is tailored along the lines of a general liberal arts education with a concentration in law. In 1997, the curriculum was revised to enhance student retention. A central feature of the reforms was the introduction of a series of foundation courses that are taken during the first semester. The foundation courses pay particular attention to study skills, which include a familiarity with learning resources, an ability to take lecture notes, and working in a group on a class project.

The pursuit of a legal education takes approximately four years and is divided into two phases. During the initial two-year phase, in addition to the aforementioned foundation courses, a student will study history, economics, political science, sociology, and finance, along with specific areas of law. These include constitutional law, administrative law, criminal law, contracts, property, and torts. The system was so developed because many of the social sciences are organized within the law faculties. Moreover, the French believe that it is essential to present the law in a general context in order for these young students to broaden their educational background. During the second two-year phase, a student begins to concentrate almost exclusively on legal studies. The more advanced courses include business law, civil liberties, employment law, and tax law. At the end of the third year, a student is awarded the degree of license in law, which is equivalent to a bachelor of law degree. Upon the completion of the fourth year, a student is granted a master of law degree.

The method of instruction is largely interdisciplinary during the first two years and is always theoretical in nature. This has been the source of some criticism directed at French legal studies programs. On the one hand, some students contend that the program does not prepare them immediately for a specific career. The law professors, on the other hand, argue that the study of law in the context of the university should be limited to the realm of ideas. Their responsibility is to train people to think like jurists, not to produce legal practitioners. Thus, a formal introduction to legal principles is imperative at this stage in the students’ intellectual development. The professors expect that, following graduation, a student will learn the technical aspects of their craft through either apprenticeship programs or additional courses of study at a professional school.

The law professors appear to have won the argument to date. This is attributed in no small part to the fact that law professors traditionally have been considered to be at the apex of the entire legal profession. Law professors enjoy the status of the pure jurist. They are allowed to live in the realm of ideas and principles and are not relegated to the task of actually attempting to apply these principles to the practical problems confronting the rest of the legal profession.

Once a student is awarded a law degree, he or she must obtain professional qualifications to practice law. Students must first pass an entrance exam that will permit them to participate in a professional course of study that lasts one year. These professional programs are associated with the courts of appeal. It is in this program that the candidate learns about the rules of professional conduct and how to draft various documents. Students also participate in two internships of which one involves working with an avocat. At the end of the year, the candidate takes a test that consists of several practical exercises designed to certify the professional aptitude of the person. If the candidate successfully passes the examination, he or she begins a two-year apprenticeship with an avocat and must register with the local bar association.

Those who wish to pursue a career with the judiciary attend the National School for the Judiciary in Bordeaux. As alluded to earlier, this is the grande école of the legal profession, the professional school that prepares people to serve as judges, procurators, or members of the central administration of justice. Admission to the school is highly competitive and is based on a written and oral examination that focuses on a candidate’s general educational background as well as knowledge of the law. The school admits approximately 200 people a year.

A successful candidate will spend 31 months in preparation to join the ranks of the judiciary. The first 11 months are spent in class at the school and participating in various public- and private-sector internships. These placements could include working with various correctional facilities, the National Police, the National Gendarmerie, or a psychiatric hospital. At the school, lectures and seminars are devoted to a wide range of legal topics and contemporary problems that are designed to prepare the candidates to function as members of the judiciary. The next 14 months are devoted to working with judges in various courts, in addition to time spent in the office of an avocat.

Candidates are graded on course work in the training classes and on the practical work out in the field. They must also pass a final series of oral and written examinations before a jury. The examining jury is composed of judges from various courts, a member of the Ministry of Justice, law professors, and a high-ranking government official. The jury can decide to pass, fail, or impose an additional year of study on the candidate. Those who fail usually enter the nonjudicial career of administration or research for the courts. Once the candidates successfully pass the examination, they spend the final six months of their training in their designated career field, either assisting a judge in a court of minor jurisdiction or working in an office of a procurator. Upon the completion of this six-month period of training, the person would begin his or her career as either a judge or a procurator. Promotions would occur through the Ministry of Justice with the advice of the High Council of the Judiciary.

Law

A distinction was made between civil law and criminal law when discussing the origins of English criminal law and procedure. The use of the term “civil law” in the common law context relates to litigation between private parties, such as issues involving torts, property, and contracts. Criminal law is concerned with a public wrong, a crime in which the defendant has transgressed the public order of society.

In this chapter, the term “civil law” is used to describe a legal system that is distinguishable from the common law system. The civil law system evolved on the continent of Europe and was influenced in its development initially by Roman law and the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church. It was influenced further by local custom. This civil law system is also referred to as the Romano-Germanic legal family.

France represents one of many European countries that adopted the civil law system. In fact, France was instrumental in establishing the Romano-Germanic family as a distinct legal system. Just as countries associated with the common law family have unique legal characteristics that distinguish them from other members of the family, so do nations within the Romano-Germanic family. Like the common law, Romano-Germanic law is found throughout the world in countries that were explored or colonized by Europeans. Until the advent of socialist law, the common law and the civil law were the most influential legal systems in the world, for they dominated the method of legal analysis.

Within its legal system, France has divided law into two general categories: public law and private law. The criminal law is part of public law, along with administrative law and constitutional law. The law governing issues involving two private parties is found under the general category of private law.

It was already pointed out earlier in the chapter that France lacked a powerful monarchy during the medieval period. This fact was instrumental in the development of law in the country. Without a dominant centralized administration, the various regions of the country were left to their own indigenous customs for the resolution of legal disputes. In the south of France, customs borrowed extensively from Roman law, a written law. In the northern provinces, the tendency was for local oral tradition or custom to dominate the formation of law. Legal principles from canon law were another distinct and important legal source. Finally, another source for resolving judicial disputes emerged upon the creation of provincial parlements. Because each parlement was independent, the resolution of the same type of dispute often differed from province to province. Thus, throughout the medieval period, legal decisions did not reflect a uniform standard.

Prior to the twelfth century, the French employed accusatory procedures similar to those used in England. The injured party had to make an oral complaint in court, and the accused had to respond. Oath-helpers were used to support the positions of the victim and the accused. At first, monetary compensation was the dominant method of resolving disputes. Forms of corporal punishment or fines, however, were gradually introduced in the seigneurial courts.

The ordeals (explained in 
Chapter 1
 on England) were also employed in France until they were banned by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. With the demise of the ordeals, the English adopted a new procedure that included the jury system. The French adopted a different approach. This new method had a profound impact on the future evolution of criminal procedure in France and led to the most notable distinction between the accusatory procedures established in the common law and the inquisitorial procedures of the Romano-Germanic law.

A primary source of France’s new procedural system was the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church. Originally, canon law employed an accusatory procedure similar to that found in Roman law and Germanic custom. As early as the ninth century, however, the church initiated a change in procedure. If public opinion accused a person of committing a crime and the accusation was substantiated by a judge, the accused was compelled to prove his or her innocence. An accused person who refused or failed to prove his or her innocence was condemned. This early method of inquisition had not been a part of church custom; rather, it was established through church legislation that often cited scripture as its justification. The inquisitorial procedures of the church were to achieve their most famous notoriety when the inquisition of heretics was undertaken in the thirteenth century. This procedure was to remain quite popular within the ecclesiastical community until the end of the fifteenth century.

Modifications in French accusatory procedure first appeared in the royal courts in the thirteenth century. What evolved was the establishment of two kinds of procedures. One was considered ordinary and accusatory in nature. The other was extraordinary, largely inquisitorial in style, and designed for use in more important and serious cases. The new inquisitorial style called for witnesses to appear before a court in a closed session. Judges acted as inquirers and collected witness testimony through an interrogation process that excluded the parties to the suit. The testimony was taken down in writing, and this marked the beginning of reliance upon written evidence in the form of a deposition. Once the inquisition was completed, the parties to the suit were brought together in open court to explain their positions. At that time, the accused had access to the written depositions and was allowed to introduce witnesses on his or her behalf.

By this time, the use of torture also was accepted as a mode of proof in the inquisitorial procedure. It has been suggested that the use of torture had its roots in Roman law. The Romans were apparently of the opinion that slaves only told the truth when subjected to pain. In ancient times, therefore, torture had become an important and universally acceptable method in cases involving people who were not free (Esmein, 1968). By the medieval period, it had become an acceptable mode of proof, irrespective of the accused’s social standing.

From the thirteenth through the early sixteenth centuries, the French employed both accusatory and inquisitorial procedures. In 1539, however, King Francis I (1494–1547) issued the Ordinance of Villers-Cotterets, which called for the standardization and utilization of inquisitorial methods in all French courts. What follows are the major characteristics of that procedure. In every criminal case, the king’s prosecutor became a party to the suit. Thus, the notion that trials were duels between private parties, which was developed under the accusatory scheme, ceased to exist. The state’s interest, through the prosecutor, was recognized and aired in a criminal trial.

Two types of magistrates were used during the course of a criminal investigation and trial. One magistrate, called “the criminal judge,” was responsible for collecting evidence and examining all parties in a case. The accused, when interrogated by the judge in private, was sworn to tell the truth but was not told of the accusation. Moreover, all interrogations of the accused, victim, and witnesses were reduced to a written transcript that became the principal source of evidence at the trial. The other kind of magistrate sat as part of a group to adjudicate the case. It was at this stage that the trial became public, and judges determined the accused’s guilt or innocence. It was also at this time that the accused was confronted with the accusation and witnesses against him or her. Although a number of changes have been made since the sixteenth century, the Ordinance of Villers-Cotterets explains the basic characteristics of the inquisitorial procedure.

Today, much of the inquisitorial process remains closed to the public. In the more serious cases, judges retain an important role in the investigative process and the collection of evidence, of which written documentation is highly prized and considered central to a case. Once the case is bound over for trial, aspects of the adversarial process become apparent. The trial, for the most part, is open to the public, and the prosecution and defense are permitted to offer oral arguments. Nevertheless, the most important element of the trial is the written record of the pretrial investigation.

Finally, brief mention should be made of the codification movement. As was indicated in the previous section, the discovery of the law books of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian prompted a renaissance in legal studies during the twelfth century. These books were originally compiled around the year 534 and consisted of four parts. The Code was a collection of ordinances approved by Roman emperors before Justinian’s time. The Novels contained the laws passed during Justinian’s reign. The Digest was a collection of legal opinions by Roman jurists on a host of legal issues. The Institutes was a handbook designed to introduce students to the study of law. Collectively, these books are referred to as Justinian’s Code or the Corpus Juris Civilis. Though these books do not constitute a code in the sense that the term has been used since the sixteenth century, the codification movement does trace its early origins to the discovery of Justinian’s Code.

Throughout the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, attempts were made to establish a single legal code in France. The goal was to create some general statutes that would be enforceable throughout the country. This met with a moderate degree of success, but regional codes remained in force. It has been suggested that the evolution of the codification movement succeeded in establishing a number of characteristics that helped prepare the country for Napoleon’s successful attempt at codification in the late eighteenth century (Maillet, 1969–1970).

The codification movement attempted to establish a unified law and in the process solve the problem of social inequality. Under the ancient régime, different classes of people were subject to special rules that were based on social class. This feature of the ancient régime was one of the causes of the French Revolution. Codification attempted to eliminate that feature by establishing a single codified system of laws.

The codification movement also explained how the law would be administered. For example, because French jurists were trained in Roman law, they borrowed some of the substantive features of that system during their attempts at codification. In addition, judges, as officers of the king, were expected to interpret the law rather than to create new law or modify existing law in some fashion. Thus, judge-made law or case law had no place in the emerging French legal system.

As one might expect, the Revolution of 1789 totally disrupted French society. With the country in a state of disarray, it was imperative that the institutions of the ancient régime be transformed to meet the needs of the new social order—needs built on the social and political principles of the Enlightenment. The establishment of a new system for the administration of justice was central to this process. During the reign of Napoleon, a commission was created to codify the law. The Civil Code was completed in 1804, followed by the Code of Civil Procedure in 1807, the Code of Commerce in 1808, the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1808, and the Penal Code of 1810. These codes either have been completely revised since that time or have had parts superseded by statutes passed in parliament.

Criminal Law

The French criminal justice system is regulated by two principal legislative enactments: the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was completely revised in 1959, and the new Penal Code, which became law in 1994 and replaced the 1810 version that had been modified over the years. The Code of Criminal Procedure explains the methods of investigating and adjudicating a person charged with violating the criminal law. The Penal Code identifies the various types of offenses and the appropriate sanctions.

The most important source of criminal law is the Penal Code. The new code is divided into five books or parts. In Book I, general provisions in the penal law explain criminal liability and responsibility, lengths of sentences, and kinds of punishments. Book II focuses on crimes (felonies) and délits (serious misdemeanors) against the person. These would consist of offenses committed against an individual but also include crimes against human rights. Book III addresses crimes and délits against property. Book IV is devoted to crimes and délits against the nation, the government, and the public order. Book V addresses other crimes and délits that are not associated with the categories already mentioned, such as crimes against the environment.

The French have divided criminal offenses into three categories: crimes, délits, and contraventions. This classification scheme not only makes distinctions between the gravity of the offense and the subsequent sanctions, but it also signifies which court in the hierarchy would hear the case. The French also include in the preliminary provisions of the code the principle that the law has no retroactive application; that is, an offender cannot be punished if the action was not illegal at the time it was committed. As was the case with the previous code, sections of it could be superseded in the future by statutes passed in parliament.

Criminal Procedure

It should be pointed out that for several years now there have been questions raised and a growing criticism of some basic criminal procedural issues. Specific concern has been directed at whether France was in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. Much of this criticism focused on matters of police custody and specifically whether France was in compliance with Article 5(2) of the Convention, which states: “Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and the charge against him.” In addition, Article 6 of the Convention, which deals with rights to defend oneself of a criminal charge, has also received a good deal of attention from the critics of the status quo.

As was mentioned earlier, the 1993 report of the Criminal Justice and Human Rights Commission that was chaired by Professor Mireille Delmas-Marty proposed several significant reforms. One involved abolishing the position of investigating judge, because only about 5 percent of the criminal cases are supervised by such a judge. Of course, these cases are among the most serious and complicated. It was recommended that procurators assume the responsibility for all investigations. While this recommendation was not acted upon, in recent years there has been a renewed interest by the executive branch of government to eliminate the position of investigative magistrate and hand over that responsibility to procurators. There continues to be strong opposition to this idea, especially from magistrates.

Another reform suggested that a defendant be permitted to have access to a lawyer during the garde à vue (police custody). The rationale for this recommendation was to assure that a defendant was aware of his or her rights, in particular, the right to silence. While this right of access was approved in 1994, questions have been raised as to whether indigent defendants will actually see a lawyer. Finally, the commission recommended that the trial judge refrain from questioning the accused and witnesses during a trial. Instead, the judge should assume the role of arbitrator. Such a recommendation would transform the existing criminal procedure from an inquisitorial to an accusatorial method. This recommendation was rejected. Some have suggested the change in the political climate contributed to the limited success of the Commission’s report (Trouille, 1994).

The issues of how a defendant was treated during the garde à vue and the number of people held on remand awaiting trial was raised in the 1997 report of the Justice Commission chaired by Pierre Truche, the president of the Court of Cassation. At issue was the need to protect the presumption of innocence. With regard to the garde à vue, the Truche Report recommended that a suspect have the right to see a lawyer at the beginning of the police custody. It was also suggested that police questioning should be recorded. In reference to the large number of people held on remand, the Truche Report recommended that custody decisions should be made by a panel of three judges rather than the investigating judge. While the government has implemented some reforms, it has been reluctant to adopt all the recommendations, especially in light of the public’s concern over crime and order issues (Elliott and Vernon, 2000).

In 2010, the Constitutional Council concluded that sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure that dealt with the garde à vue were unconstitutional, because it limited or prevented a defense attorney from being present during an interrogation and limited the attorney’s access to his or her client’s file. The Council called on the government to correct this problem. In late 2010, the Court of Cassation joined in this debate when it ruled in three decisions that some aspects of the garde à vue violated Article 6, the right to a fair trial, of the European Convention on Human Rights. The specific issues mentioned by the Court involved restrictions on the right to be assisted by an attorney and the right to be notified to remain silent. In May 2011, the French Parliament adopted legislation that is designed to address the aforementioned concerns. These are explained in greater detail in the next section.

This examination of France’s criminal procedure is divided into two categories. The first includes the preliminary investigation, which involves an examination of police powers and other pertinent pretrial procedural issues. The second category is concerned with the trial process, which consists of the main hearing and appellate review procedures. France’s Code of Criminal Procedure is the legal document that essentially explains the manner in which these procedures are executed.

It should be noted that even before the Delmas-Marty and Truche reports were issued, there were proponents who had been recommending changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure. One such recommendation was to offer some basic guiding principles at the beginning of the Code. In 2000, a preliminary article was added to the Code that provided these principles:

· (i) Criminal procedure should be fair and adversarial and preserve a balance between the rights of the parties. It should guarantee a separation between those authorities responsible for prosecuting and those responsible for judging. Persons who find themselves in a similar situation and prosecuted for the same offences should be judged according to the same rules.

· (ii) The judicial authority ensures that victims are informed and that their rights are respected throughout any criminal process.

· (iii) Every person suspected or prosecuted is presumed innocent as long as his guilt has not been established. Attacks on his presumption of innocence are proscribed, compensated and punished in the circumstances laid down by statute. He has the right to be informed of charges brought against him and to be legally defended. The coercive measures to which such a person may be subjected are taken by or under the effective control of judicial authority. They should be strictly limited to the needs of the process, proportionate to the gravity of the offence charged and not such as to infringe human dignity. The accusation to which such a person is subjected should be brought to final judgment within a reasonable time. Every convicted person has the right to have his conviction examined by a second tribunal.

It is very important to clarify one word that is found in the first principle. The word is “adversarial.” Adversarial is frequently associated with the procedures of the common law legal family, and it is often contrasted with the inquisitorial procedure that is associated with the Romano-Germanic legal family, of which France is a member. In the French context, “adversarial” means something different from the common law usage. It is meant to convey that all parties in a case are accorded the same rights in the procedural process. In particular, it is designed to assure that the defense will have an opportunity to review all the evidence and be made aware of the case against the accused. This is designed to afford the accused an opportunity to answer the charges against him or her in a timely and thorough manner (Hodgson, 2005; Spencer, in Delmas-Marty and Spencer, 2002).

Preliminary Investigations

Following the commission of an offense, a preliminary investigation is undertaken to determine who committed the act or who is reasonably suspected of involvement in the offense. According to Article 11, “[p]roceedings in the course of inquiry and investigation shall be secret, unless otherwise provided by law and without prejudice to the rights of the defense.” The goal is to acquire an independent investigation of the facts in a case by an officer who impartially examines all aspects of the case.

During the early stages of an investigation, there was a concern regarding bias toward the person being questioned. As mentioned earlier, in 2010 both the Constitutional Council and the Court of Cassation raised concerns about the manner in which people were held by police during the initial questioning (garde à vue). To illustrate, they only needed to be told that they were assisting with a police investigation. Police did not have to provide a probable cause explanation. The person could be held for 24 hours without being formally charged, and this period of custody could be extended to 48 hours with the permission of a procurator. Although a person had a right to remain silent, there was no requirement that they be informed of this right. Moreover, a person did not have access to an avocat for the initial 20 hours of a garde à vue, and when they did, the meeting was limited to 30 minutes.

As a result of the legislation passed in 2011, detailed guidelines provide greater clarity for procedures associated with police custody. First, there must be probable cause to suspect that a person committed or attempted to commit a crime or délit that is punishable by imprisonment before placing them in custody. Second, when a person is placed in custody, he or she must be informed of the following: the length of the custody and any possible renewals in the length of the custody, the nature and presumed date of the offense in question, the right to notify a relative or employer, the right to be examined by a physician, the right of assistance by an attorney, and the right to remain silent. Third, the suspect must be brought before a procurator to enable that official to determine the course of the investigation. Fourth, the rationale for the custody must involve one or more of the following: to preserve evidence, to prevent tampering with the victim or witnesses, to prevent communications between suspects and accomplices, and to terminate the crime or criminal enterprise or a repetition of the crime or enterprise.

Fifth, the overall supervision of the police custody ultimately resides with the procurator. Sixth, the period of custody cannot exceed 24 hours, but it can be extended an additional 24 hours with the approval of the procurator. The grounds for an extension are that the offense under investigation includes a term of imprisonment of at least one year or that the continued custody will safeguard concerns listed in point four mentioned earlier. Seventh, when a person is in custody, the first interrogation must be delayed for up to two hours following the request for the assistance of an avocat for the suspect. Under some circumstances, the procurator or a liberty and detention judge (whose role is explained later) can authorize a delay in the access to the avocat for up to 12 hours. Granting such a delay would be associated with circumstances pertinent to the ongoing investigation by the authorities. Moreover, the presence of the avocat can be delayed by the liberty and detention judge at the request of the procurator for 24 hours if the offense in question could lead to a minimum five-year term of imprisonment. Finally, the avocat for the suspect has access to any statements made by the suspect and to any medical certificate prepared by a physician, if the suspect had requested an examination by a physician when he or she was placed in custody. The avocat is not provided a copy of these items but is permitted to take notes from these documents. The avocat is not allowed to review any other police evidence at this stage in the process. Only time will tell if these new guidelines satisfy the Constitutional Council and the Court of Cassation.

There were exceptions to the old rules, but the Constitutional Council and the Court of Cassation did not find them to be unconstitutional. For example, consultation with an avocat can be delayed even longer than those previously spelled out in certain circumstances. In cases alleging conspiracy, aggravated extortion, or organized crime, a person can be prohibited from seeing an avocat for 48 hours. In those cases involving serious drug trafficking or terrorism, the garde à vue can last 96 hours and the consultation with an avocat delayed for 72 hours. When a detention involves drug offenses or terrorism, a judge from a court of major jurisdiction must approve the extension. In all the other instances, a judicial hearing is not provided to determine the validity of a detention. Finally, the French do not have a legal equivalent of a writ of habeas corpus.

Once a person is charged with an offense, the procurator and avocat for the defendant are given access to the findings of the investigator. Moreover, both parties can suggest specific kinds of leads for further inquiry. The principal participants involved in a preliminary investigation are the judicial police (who are members of the criminal investigation branch of the French police), a procurator, and—if the offense is serious— an investigating judge selected from the ranks of judges rather than from procurators of the judiciary.

If the offense is classified as flagrant, all the previously mentioned parties could be involved in the investigation. Article 52 explains what constitutes a flagrant offense:

The felony or misdemeanor that is in the process of being committed or which has just been committed is a flagrant felony or flagrant misdemeanor. There is also a flagrant felony or misdemeanor when, in the period immediately following the act, the suspected person is pursued by clamor, or is found in possession of objects, or presents traces or indications, leading to the belief that he has participated in the felony or misdemeanor. Every crime or misdemeanor which, though not committed in the circumstances provided in the preceding paragraph, has been committed in a house the head of which asks the prosecuting attorney or an officer of the judicial police to establish it shall be assimilated to a flagrant felony or misdemeanor.

In cases of flagrant crimes or délits, the judicial police are expected to take immediate action. They are granted wide powers under the circumstances.

The first duty of the judicial police is to inform the procurator of the Republic. Within each of the 35 districts of the courts of appeal, there is a procurator of the Republic responsible for the prosecution of all cases in the district. The judicial police then are expected to go immediately to the scene of the offense. If the judicial police arrive before a procurator, they are empowered to do a number of things. For example, they preserve the crime scene, they search and seize all evidence and weapons pertinent to the case, and they interview and detain people at the crime scene who are knowledgeable about the case. These investigative responsibilities pass to the procurator upon arrival. Actually, the judicial police continue to perform these tasks, but under the procurator’s direction.

In cases that are considered serious (that is, all crimes and many flagrant délits), the procurator of the Republic could request that an independent investigation be undertaken by an investigating judge, a judge responsible for conducting a complete and impartial examination of the facts. An investigating judge is mandated to conduct an instruction (or information). The mission of an investigating judge is to establish the truth in the matter. Assisted by the judicial police, the judge interviews witnesses and follows leads believed to be beneficial to the resolution of the case. The judge will issue the necessary warrants to have places searched and suspects and evidence seized. Once certain who has committed the offense, an investigating judge will issue a mandate that, depending on the type of case, authorizes the police either to bring the suspect before the investigating judge or to have the suspect arrested and held.

The obvious advantage to this system is that there is only one investigation. This eliminates the need for the police, procurator, and avocat for the defense to make separate inquiries into the matter, because the findings of the official investigation are made available to all parties in the case. Moreover, the procurator and the avocat can request an investigating judge to follow leads that they believe are pertinent to the case. The investigating judge, whose role is to discover the truth in the matter, is usually amenable to these suggestions.

As mentioned earlier, it should be noted that the role of the investigating judge has been the subject of a good deal of controversy for some time. It has received the most media publicity of all the actors in the French criminal justice system. Some critics of the position allege that it provides too much power to a single individual. Given the complex nature of some criminal enterprises, questions have also been raised regarding the ability of some judges. In early 2009, however, the president of France, Nicholas Sarkozy, proposed to eliminate the role of investigating judge and to turn the investigative process over to procurators. Part of the argument in opposition to the proposed plan is that procurators are not independent from the executive branch of government, because they report to the Ministry of Justice. Moreover, this would give procurators more political power at a time when some of the cases being handled by investigating magistrates involve political cases. There have been cases, however, in which magistrates have made errors in their investigations, and in some instances there has been the perception that the investigating magistrate was either overwhelmed with the case or abused his or her powers. To address this problem and perception, teams of investigative magistrates, rather than a single magistrate, have been assigned to the more complex cases since 2008.

In the more serious cases, a second review of the charges is entertained by a chamber of instruction before the case is brought to trial. Chambers of instruction are a permanent feature of courts of appeal. A chamber of instruction is composed of three judges from the local court of appeal. During this phase of the investigation, a hearing is conducted by the chamber, and briefs are filed by the parties to the case. The chamber also reviews petitions (for example, regarding the accused’s detention) or appeals such as those involving the impropriety of the initial investigation. The chamber can order the appearance of the parties or evidence and can request a supplemental investigation if it deems it appropriate. An investigation can be directed by either a member of the chamber or an investigating judge. Following this hearing, the chamber can dismiss the case, issue an indictment that binds the accused over for trial, or reduce the charges to a misdemeanor violation and have the case heard in the appropriate court.

In cases that are not considered flagrant offenses, the judicial police have limited powers to conduct an investigation on their own or under the supervision of the procurator of the Republic. Thus, all other délits and contraventions are handled in this manner. The judicial police have the authority to question suspects and witnesses, to visit the scene if the owner agrees, and to decide if a person should be detained. In these less serious cases, a procurator directs the investigation.

Power to Detain and Arrest

There are three instances under French procedural rules in which persons can be deprived of their liberty prior to the determination of guilt. One is the garde à vue, a temporary detention measure. This power may be utilized by the judicial police when they are conducting their preliminary investigation. According to the rules, the police have the authority to call on or summon any person who is capable of aiding in an investigation. This could include a suspect or a witness. If a person is unwilling to cooperate, the procurator has the authority to order the person to appear before the police. As was mentioned earlier, the police have the power to detain a suspect for up to 24 hours. If the police desire to extend the detention for a longer period, they must request an extension from either a procurator or an investigating judge. These requests are usually handled by a procurator, and an extension can be awarded for an additional 24-hour period. A liberty and detention judge or a chamber of instruction has the authority to cancel a detention measure if it is deemed unlawful. The role of the liberty and detention judge will be explained shortly. People who are detained under this procedure can be given a medical examination either during or after the termination of the 24-hour period.

Another method of depriving persons of their liberty before guilt has been determined is through the execution of a warrant. In cases involving flagrant crimes or délits, a procurator can issue a warrant for a suspect’s arrest if an investigating judge has not yet received the case. An investigating judge can issue four kinds of warrants: appearance, attachment, confinement, or arrest. Article 122 states:

A warrant for appearance has as its object placing the accused under a duty to present himself before the judge on the date and at the hour indicated by the warrant. A warrant of attachment is the order given by the judge to the police immediately to produce the accused before him. A warrant for confinement is the order given by the judge to the supervisor of the jail to receive and to detain the accused. This warrant also permits searching for or transfer of the accused if he has been notified previously. A warrant of arrest is the order given to the police to seek out the accused and to produce him at the jail indicated in the warrant, where he shall be received and detained.

In cases involving a warrant for appearance, the investigating judge is expected to interrogate the person immediately. If this is not possible, the person can be held for 24 hours at most. A person held on a warrant for attachment also must appear before an investigating judge within 24 hours. Warrants for confinement are issued only after an investigating judge has already interrogated the suspect and the case begins to focus on a person who could be imprisoned for the offense if found guilty. Warrants for arrest require that the suspect be brought before an investigating judge for questioning within 48 hours of the time of the arrest.

The third method of depriving people of their liberty before trial is a result of the Security and Liberty Law of 1981. A procurator can request a judge of a court of major jurisdiction to restrict a defendant’s liberty if the person is charged with a délit that is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.

It should also be pointed out that the Security and Liberty Law gives the police the legal authority to require any person to identify themselves during the course of a criminal investigation or during a public order disturbance. A person without adequate identification may be brought to a police station and permitted to contact people who can assist in their identification. In such instances, the person can be held for up to six hours. A person refusing to offer identification has the right to have a procurator notified. Refusal to cooperate in the identification process is an offense punishable by a jail sentence of 10 days to three months and a fine (Pugh and Pugh, 1982).

Interrogations

The Code of Criminal Procedure makes a distinction between two kinds of interrogations: (1) the hearing of witnesses, and (2) interrogation and confrontations. In the hearing of witnesses, witnesses are placed under oath and examined separately by an investigating judge. The accused is not present at this proceeding. Witnesses who do not appear for questioning can be picked up by the police and fined. Witnesses who have declared knowledge of a crime or délit but refuse to answer questions posed by an investigating judge can be jailed for a period of at least 11 days but not more than one year. In addition, a fine also can be imposed in conjunction with a jail sentence.

Interrogations and confrontations involve the questioning of the accused and the civil party (or victim). The investigating judge must acquaint the parties with a number of rights. For example, an investigating judge must inform the accused of the offenses with which he or she is being charged and advise the accused of the right to remain silent and the right to an avocat for his or her defense. If the accused is willing to make a statement without counsel, the investigating judge is free to accept the information. The accused also must inform the investigating judge of his or her place of residence, whether he or she is being detained, and any change in residence. The civil party also has a right to be represented by counsel.

An accused individual who is being detained has a right to communicate with counsel. With the exception of counsel for the accused, an investigating judge can issue a prohibition that prevents the accused from communicating with other people. This right of prohibition lasts for 10 days and can be renewed only once for an additional 10-day period. The accused and victim cannot confront one another unless counsel is present or the right to have counsel present is waived. A procurator can assist an investigating judge in interrogating the accused or in hearing the victim. The procurator, counsel for the accused, and counsel for the victim can present only those questions that have been approved by the investigating judge. Even if the investigating judge rejects the question, it still appears in the official report.

Power to Search and Seize

The powers of search and seizure are also governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. A search and seizure can occur either with or without a warrant. Searches and seizures that are considered legal without a warrant involve offenses labeled flagrant crimes. Following the commission of a flagrant crime, the judicial police are expected to notify a procurator before proceeding to the scene of the offense. Upon their arrival, the police are expected to secure the crime scene and to collect evidence. According to Article 56 of the Code, if the judicial police believe additional evidence is likely to be uncovered at the residence of a suspect, they are expected to conduct a search of the premises immediately. Moreover, procedures require that either the suspect or a representative be present during the search. If this is not possible, the judicial police may select two witnesses to observe the search. Finally, Article 59 states that “the absence of a demand made from the interior of a house or the exceptions provided by law searches and domicility visits may not be begun before six o’clock in the morning or after nine o’clock at night.”

These procedures are also followed in cases in which a flagrant délit has been committed and a suspect could be imprisoned if found guilty. Warrantless searches and seizures at any other location must have the written consent of the owners of the property. The police, however, are authorized to enter and search without a warrant under certain circumstances that have been established by specific statutes. These statutes deal with illegal gambling, immoral acts, and drug offenses.

According to Article 92, an investigating judge has the authority to “go anywhere in order there to effectuate all useful determinations or to conduct searches. He shall advise the prosecuting attorney, who may accompany him.” In searching the residence of an accused or another person, an investigating judge is expected to follow the rules that apply to the judicial police.

Searches and seizures also are undertaken with a warrant issued by an investigating judge. The judicial police conduct the search. Before the search starts, the police are expected to identify themselves and present the warrant to the occupant. Either the occupant, a designated representative, or two witnesses must be present during a search. The police may search an occupant and the premises and are permitted to seize any item believed to be related to the offense. While searches of a person are conducted to secure evidence, a frisk of a person is also permissible to ensure the safety of a police officer.

It is the responsibility of the chamber of instruction to review the manner in which evidence is collected. The chamber has the authority either to void the proceedings because of illegal actions taken by the authorities or to exclude from the trial evidence that was obtained in an illegal manner. The judicial police who conducted the illegal activities also can be subject to a number of sanctions including disciplinary procedures, temporary or permanent suspension from the ranks of the judicial police, penal sanctions, and civil proceedings.

Pretrial Detention and Supervision

In law, detaining a person before trial is considered an exceptional measure. When it is instituted, it must comply with the rules that are explained in Articles 144 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 144 states:

Pretrial detention may only be ordered or extended if it is the only way:

1. to preserve material evidence or clues or to prevent either witnesses or victims being pressured, or fraudulent conspiracy between persons under judicial examination and their accomplices;

2. to protect the person under judicial examination, to guarantee that he remains at the disposal of the law, to put an end to the offence or to prevent its renewal;

3. to put an end to an exceptional and persistent disruption of public order caused by the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, or the gravity of the harm that it has caused.

Prior to 2000, it was primarily the responsibility of the investigating judge to determine if a defendant involved in a serious offense should be released or held in custody pending trial. In certain cases, pretrial detention could also be determined by a judge of the court of major jurisdiction or by the chamber of instruction. In 2000, however, as part of the effort to reform various procedures, the French introduced a new person in the criminal proceedings: the liberty and detention judge. Like the investigating judge, the liberty and detention judge is a member of the magistrates who elected a career as a judge. Like the investigating judge, the liberty and detention judge is assigned a specialized responsibility in French criminal procedure. As the name implies, the judge is the person primarily responsible for determining if a person will be released or detained prior to the trial. In certain cases, a judge of the court of major jurisdiction or the chamber of instruction retains the authority to detain a defendant.

The liberty and detention judge makes this determination to release or detain by holding an adversarial hearing. At this hearing, the procurator, defendant, and the avocat for the defendant are given an opportunity to provide reasons and evidence as to why the defendant should be held or released. The judge must provide in writing the reasons for the decision, and the reasons must be based on the points mentioned earlier in Article 144 of the code— that is, preserve evidence, protect the person, or prevent public disorder.

Article 144–1 states: “Pre-trial detention may not exceed a reasonable length of time in respect of the seriousness of the charges brought against the person under judicial examination and of the complexity of the investigations necessary for the discovery of the truth.” The length of a detention is determined by the nature of the offense. If the defendant is accused of a délit, the detention cannot exceed four months unless the person has already been sentenced for committing a crime or sentenced to a term of more than a year.

If the defendant is accused of a crime, he or she cannot be held for more than a year, unless the liberty and detention judge elects to extend the period of detention an additional six months following an adversarial hearing. Periods of pretrial detention are further elaborated in Article 145–3 of the code:

The person under judicial examination may not be kept in custody for more than two years, where the applicable sentence is less than twenty years’ imprisonment, and for more than three years in all other cases. The time limits are extended to three and four years respectively where one of the elements of the offence has been committed outside the national territory. The time limit is also four years where the person is being prosecuted for one or more felonies mentioned in Books II and IV of the Criminal Code, or for drug trafficking, terrorism, living off immoral earnings, extortion of money or for a felony committed by an organized gang.

Obviously, if a defendant is released, conditions are frequently imposed that restrict the accused’s freedom of movement and spell out the obligations of the accused while at liberty.

It has been suggested that bail is not used much in France (Ingraham, 1987). Application for bail can be made by the accused or the accused’s counsel at any time during a case. When bail is requested initially during an investigation into a serious offense, an investigating judge decides the matter. As the case proceeds during the pretrial phase, bail requests would transfer to the liberty and detention judge. Once bail is granted, the accused must inform the authorities of an established residence within the area of investigation.

Article 142 of the code explains how bail is secured and the methods by which it is either returned or forfeited, depending on the outcome of the trial. Before bail is granted, the judge can order the accused to furnish a security. A security is always in the form of money and is deposited with the clerk of the court. Moreover, the security is allotted for two purposes, and thus consists of two parts. Part of the security is designed to assure that the accused will appear at all stages of the trial. The other part is held in the event that costs are awarded to the civil or public party, a fine is imposed, or restitution and damages are awarded. The first part of the security is returned if the accused appears throughout the trial or is acquitted, or if the case is dismissed. The second part also is returned if the accused is acquitted or the case dismissed. In cases of conviction, only the balance of the security is returned after costs, fines, restitution, and damages are awarded. Those people who either were not detained or were released on bail during the preliminary investigation must surrender to the court no later than the evening before commencement of the trial.

Legal Aid

Since the early 1970s, legal aid has become more readily available in France. Legal aid is granted either in total or in part, but the applicant must live in France and must be without sufficient means to pay for counsel. A person can apply for legal aid at any time during the course of a proceeding. A judge does not grant legal aid; instead, commissions have been established in courts of major jurisdiction, courts of appeal, and the Court of Cassation to dispense aid.

The commissions are composed of members of the judiciary, members of the legal profession, and local government authorities. Once legal aid is approved, the application is sent to the president of the local bar association, who then appoints counsel. Legal aid can be withdrawn during the course of the proceedings if the beneficiary acquires funds to employ his or her own counsel or if the commission discovers that a person did not accurately disclose his or her financial status.

Many lawyers appear to be either hostile or indifferent to the legal aid scheme. The opposition usually stems from two considerations. Legal aid means that an avocat is being financially supported by the state. Avocats oppose this on the grounds that they are indirectly becoming a part of the civil service. Moreover, legal aid only covers an avocat’s expenses but does not provide a fee for services. At a time when the income of the profession has declined, this has resulted in avocats’ lack of enthusiasm for the scheme.

The Trial

There are three kinds of courts in France that are responsible for adjudicating specific types of criminal offenses. The courts of assize handle cases involving crimes. The courts of major jurisdiction entertain cases involving délits. The courts of minor jurisdiction hear cases involving contraventions. Each is examined here separately.

It should be pointed out that guilty pleas are not accepted unless the offense is a minor one that could lead only to the sanction of a fine. This essentially eliminates the possibility of plea bargaining as it is usually applied in the United States. Confessions before trial and guilty pleas at trial are simply treated as part of the evidence in the dossier. Obviously, an uncontested trial is considerably shorter, for all it requires is a confirmation of accuracy of the defendant’s admission by the president of the court.

A court of assize exists in each of the 96 departments of France. It handles cases involving crimes that have been remanded on indictment. The court holds a regular assize every three months, but supplementary sessions can be called for by either the president of the court or the procurator of the Republic. The court is presided over by the president, who is a judge from the regional court of appeals. In addition to the president, the bench is composed of two assesseurs, who are judges from either a court of appeals or a court of major jurisdiction. Before a trial begins in a court of assize, a number of preliminary procedural issues must be completed. The accused, who has been remanded to the jail where the assize is held, is brought before the president or one of the assesseurs at the start of the assize. The judge confirms the identity of the accused, and if counsel has not been secured, permits the accused to select counsel from a list of avocats provided by the local bar association. If the accused does not select counsel, the judge will appoint an avocat.

At least 24 hours before the start of a trial, the parties in the case exchange lists of witnesses they wish to have called. The names of experts who assisted in the investigation and who will be called are supplied, and a list of potential jurors for the session is provided. In exceptional cases in which the president is not satisfied with the original inquiry, the president can call for the suspension of the trial and order the reopening of the preliminary investigation. The president, an assesseur, or an investigating judge can undertake this investigation. This is considered an exceptional matter because the case was originally investigated by an investigating judge (if it was a serious crime) and then it was sent to the chamber of instruction of the regional court of appeal for a second review.

Finally, at the opening of a session of the court, potential jurors are selected through a lottery method from an annual list of jurors. This lottery selects 35 potential jurors and 10 potential alternate jurors. The next step is the actual selection of the jurors for a trial. Although this was explained in the previous section on the judiciary, it is worth summarizing briefly how a French jury is formed. It is significant to note that this is the only French court that utilizes a jury.

In a public session before the accused, the names of the potential jurors are placed in an urn. The names of nine jurors must be drawn unchallenged before the jury is considered formed. If it is anticipated that a trial will be quite lengthy, one or more alternate jurors are selected at this time. As the name of each juror is drawn, the procurator and counsel for the accused have the opportunity to challenge the juror. Under the French system, this is simply a verbal challenge; counsel does not state a reason. The procurator is allowed no more than four challenges, while counsel for the accused has five challenges. Once nine jurors are selected, they take their seats beside the judges and are sworn in by the president of the court.

While most trials are open to the public, Article 306 of the code states that the “trial shall be public unless the publicity would be dangerous for public order or morals.” It also states that “the president may prohibit access to the courtroom to all or some minors.” The civil party in a case can request that the trial be closed to the public. For the most part, these requests are made when the case involves rape, sexual attacks that included torture, or some other barbaric activity.

The president is a principal participant in the trial, with significant discretionary powers. Criminal investigations in France traditionally have emphasized a thorough written record of the preliminary investigation. Thus, as was the case in centuries past, a dossier remains an important feature of a trial. In a case involving a crime, a dossier is prepared under the direction of an investigating judge. Despite extensive pretrial preparation, the president still can order the appearance of extra witnesses that may be of assistance and can request the collection of new or additional evidence. The president’s mission during a trial is to see that all avenues are explored with the aim of discovering the truth.

The assesseurs and jurors also have an important role, but they must obtain the permission of the president to ask questions of witnesses or the accused during a trial. The procurator, who is representing the interests of society while prosecuting the case, may pose questions directly. The accused or the accused’s counsel asks questions through the president. In cases in which a victim sues for damages and the suit is entertained jointly with the criminal trial, the civil party (or victim) or counsel also can raise questions through the president.

The standard trial procedure in a court of assize includes the following steps:

1. With all the principal participants of the trial in attendance, the president will ask the clerk to read the names of witnesses who will be heard for each party in the case. The witnesses will then be taken to a separate room where they will remain until it is their turn to testify. If a witness does not appear at the trial, the court can issue an order to the police to bring the person to the trial. Unless there is a legitimate excuse for nonappearance, the witness is charged the costs of being brought to the court. The court may not require the police to find witnesses and bring them to court because the witnesses’ earlier testimony is already a part of the dossier.

2. The clerk of the court reads the decree of remand of the accused to the court. This is essentially a summary of the dossier and includes the allegations, evidence of witnesses and the defendant’s response to the witnesses’ evidence, the personal history of the defendant, the results of any psychological or psychiatric examinations, and the criminal history of the defendant.

3. The accused is afforded the opportunity to make a statement. This is followed by questioning from the president and procurator directly. Assesseur and jurors must seek the president’s permission to ask questions. Finally, counsel for the civil party and defense must submit their questions to the president.

4. Each witness is called to testify separately. Usually, the police case officer is called first to give an account of the investigation. This is often followed by an expert witness, such as a psychiatrist. Witnesses first take an oath and are then free to make their statement. Witnesses are not interrupted when making their statement, as long as the testimony is relevant to the facts in the case. This is followed by questioning from the principal participants in the case. After completing his or her testimony, each witness remains in the courtroom unless the president grants them a leave of absence.

5. At any time during the testimony, the president can order evidence for the case presented to the court or the person on the witness stand.

6. The civil party or his or her counsel is then heard.

7. The procurator presents arguments.

8. The accused or his or her counsel offers the defense.

9. The civil party and the procurator are allowed to reply to the defense.

10. The accused or his or her counsel is offered a final opportunity to respond.

11. The president declares the termination of the trial. There is no summing up of the charges or of the defense. The president then suspends the hearing, and the judges and jurors retire to the court’s conference room for deliberations.

12. After the judges and jurors have deliberated, they vote on secret written ballots regarding the charges against the accused. Unmarked ballots are considered favorable to the accused. To affirm a person’s guilt, a majority of eight votes must favor conviction.

13. Once convicted, the judges and jurors vote to determine an appropriate sanction. Again, ballots are used and a majority must agree to the punishment.

14. The court then reconvenes with the accused present and the pronouncement is read. If the accused is acquitted, he or she is immediately set free. If convicted, the accused is informed of the sanction and told of the privilege to petition for a review of the case to the Court of Cassation. Petitions for review will be explained later in the chapter.

15. If a civil claim has been introduced, the judges retire alone to decide that issue. If the civil party is awarded damages, the accused must pay the costs. According to Article 372, “[t]he civil party, in case of acquittal as in the case of absolution, may request reparation of damages resulting from the fault of the accused to the extent that it results from the facts that were the object of the accusation.” Article 375 states:

The civil party who has obtained damages shall never be held for [court] costs. One who has lost shall be condemned to costs only if he himself initiated the prosecution. However, even in that case he may, with regard to the circumstances of the case, be relieved of all or part of the costs by special decision of the court, stating reasons.

When a person is accused of committing a délit, the case is tried in a local court of major jurisdiction. Courts of major jurisdiction are divided into three divisions: civil, juvenile, and correctional courts. It is the correctional court that handles the adjudication of délits committed by adults. With one exception, the procedures and the participants are the same as those found in a court of assize. The exception is that the court is composed of three magistrates: the president of the court and two judges. Lay jurors are not used to deliberate a case involving a délit. As was indicated earlier, it is now permissible for a single judge of this court to hear cases involving certain kinds of délits, such as traffic offenses, some forms of drug abuse, and the misuse of a credit card.

With the passage of the Security and Liberty Law of 1981, summary procedures are now permitted in the correctional court. This procedure usually is invoked when the evidence clearly points to the guilt of a defendant. For example, when a person is caught committing a délit, the procurator brings the defendant to trial while still in police custody. Thus, the defendant’s first appearance in court also serves as his or her trial. Defendants do have a right to postpone the trial for up to five days in order to secure an avocat and to prepare a defense. On the one hand, this law is designed to assure swift and certain punishment. On the other hand, critics are concerned about the consequences this process has for the defendant’s rights; because trials are quickly handled, there is often an absence of counsel for the accused (Tomlinson, 1983).

Once a judgment is rendered in a correctional court of a court of major jurisdiction, all the principal parties involved in the case have the right to appeal to the court of appeal in that district. Appeals are based on either factual errors or on a point of law. A three-judge panel, consisting of the president of the court and two conseillers, hears the appeal. An appeal consists of an oral hearing, at which time witnesses can be called, the accused questioned, and arguments presented by the principal parties in the case. If the appeal is based solely on a factual discrepancy, the court of appeal serves as the final arbiter in the case. If the issue on appeal involves a point of law, the person can request that the Court of Cassation review the matter.

Depending on who initiated the appeal and what issue is involved, the court has a number of options available in deciding the case. For example, Article 515 indicates that:

1. When an issue is on appeal by prosecuting counsel, the Court of Appeal may either confirm the judgment or reverse it all or in part in a sense favorable or unfavorable to the accused.

2. The Court of Appeal may not, on the appeal only of the accused, of the person civilly responsible, of the civil party, or of the insurer of one of these persons, aggravate the position of the appellant.

3. The civil party may not form any new claim in a case on appeal; however, he may ask for an increase of the damages for prejudice suffered since the decision at trial.

Moreover, the court also can conclude that no offense was committed in cases in which there is insufficient evidence. Thus, the prosecution would be dismissed. According to Article 518, “[i]f the judgment is annulled because the Court of Appeal decides that the act constitutes only a contravention, it shall pronounce the penalty and decide on the civil action, if that is appropriate.” Finally, Article 519 states that “[i]f the judgment is annulled because the Court of Appeal decides that the act is of such a nature as to be followed by a felony penalty the court shall declare itself incompetent. It shall remand to official counsel [procurator] that he may proceed as he sees fit.” This could lead to the accused being brought to trial in a court of assize.

Finally, people accused of committing a contravention have the case heard in one of the 473 local courts of minor jurisdiction. Courts of minor jurisdiction are divided into two divisions: a civil tribunal for civil claims and a police court for criminal matters. The procedures are similar to those found in courts of major jurisdiction, but because of the nature of the offenses, they are generally handled in a summary fashion. The police court differs from the other tribunals in that a single judge hears the case.

A majority of cases in this court never go to trial. The procurator simply attaches to the dossier a request for a particular disposition. If the judge and defendant agree to the disposition, which is usually a fine, the case is terminated. Of course, if a judge or defendant opposes the disposition, the case is bound over for trial.

Cases heard in this court also can be appealed. Appeals involving facts or law are sent to the court of appeal in the district. If the matter involves a point of law that is not resolved in the court of appeal, the person can petition the Court of Cassation to review the matter further.

Among the ordinary courts in the French judicial hierarchy, the Court of Cassation is the tribunal of last resort. The role of the court is to assure that judicial decisions are consistent throughout France and are in conformity with the law. Although the court can intervene at any time on any issue to assure conformity, intervention is usually limited to points of law. It does not, as a rule, consider disagreements that involve facts. Those issues are brought to a court of appeal, which serves as the final arbiter.

In order to have a case brought to the Court of Cassation, a person must petition for a review with the court that handed down the decision that is being disputed. Criminal cases would go to the criminal chamber of the court. The chamber would be composed of about seven judges, who entertain only the disputed part of the case. The court can either reject the petition and let the original decision stand, or quash the original decision and send the matter back to a new court at the same level at which the case was originally heard. This new court is known as the court of rehearing. When it hears the case, it can adopt the position of the Court of Cassation in the matter. In such instances the decision is final. However, the court of rehearing is not obliged to follow the Court of Cassation’s directions. If a second petition to the Court of Cassation results from the court of rehearing’s unwillingness to follow the high court’s direction, then the matter comes before the full court. If the full court quashes the decision and sends the matter back to a second court of rehearing, that court must comply with the wishes of the Court of Cassation.

It should be pointed out that a petition filed by a person convicted of a crime can be supported by the procurator. This may appear odd because the procurator was attempting to convict the accused during the course of trial. Nevertheless, if a person is convicted and sentenced to a sanction that does not apply to the crime committed, the convicted person could petition for a review of the sentence (for it is an issue that involves a point of law). The procurator may join in the petition in the interests of society.

Critical Issues

Procurator

The heightened concern for swift and certain punishment and the enactment of the Security and Liberty Law have enhanced considerably the discretionary authority of the procurator. This has raised concerns among critics of the system. Procurators have long dominated the investigative stage, because they initiate investigations by filing the charge. This procedure is followed even if the offense is serious enough to require that an investigating judge oversee the actual investigation.

Because the number of investigating judges is small, they tend to be overworked. Procurators increasingly have been circumventing the investigating judge in the name of efficiency by reducing charges from a crime to a délit. Although defendants can protest this action, it is often not in their best interests to do so. As a result of the reduction in charges, investigating judges handled less than 10 percent of the cases under investigation (Levy, 1993; Hodgson, 2005; Tomlinson, 1983). More recently, it has been suggested that the percentage has declined to about 5 percent.

Critics are concerned that the exercise of this kind of discretion puts the legal rights of the defendant at risk. As indicated earlier, defendants are afforded more procedural rights when an investigation is supervised by an investigating judge than when it is handled initially and solely by the police. Circumventing the investigating judge has been resolved to some extent with the passage of the Security and Liberty Law, for this legislation changed the status of some offenses from a crime to a délit.

Another principal concern about procuratorial discretion involves the introduction of summary procedures in courts of major jurisdiction. Again, the defendant’s legal rights are placed at risk. Summary procedures were introduced in these courts through the Security and Liberty Law, which was designed to assure swift and certain punishment, particularly when the guilt of a defendant was overwhelming. Critics argue that the swiftness of this process may inhibit a fair trial, especially if the defendant is pressured in some way against securing legal counsel.

With the issuance of the Truche Report in 1997 (mentioned earlier), procurators once again became the subject of scrutiny. Of particular concern was the extent to which politicians may influence decisions of procurators. While procurators are trained as judges and considered part of the judiciary, they nevertheless are members of the Public Ministry and thus accountable to the Ministry of Justice. In more recent years, a number of political corruption cases have been brought to the attention of procurators, in which they ruled that no further action was necessary. These cases are seen as illustrations of politicians interfering with the judicial process. These cases should not be judged in isolation, but rather considered in the larger context of procurators recommending no further action in cases. In 1995, for example, 5.2 million offenses were brought to the attention of procurators assigned to the courts of major jurisdiction. In one-half of these cases, a suspect was named in the case, yet 80 percent of the total number of cases (4.2 million) were classified as warranting no further action (Elliott and Vernon, 2000).

The policy of no further action has led to calls that the discretionary authority of procurators should be curbed. As mentioned earlier, some critics have argued that the introduction of the principle of mandatory prosecution, which is found in a number of civil law countries, would eliminate the concerns of procurators exercising too much discretion. The Truche Report did not support this idea. It favored retaining procuratorial discretion, for it is illustrative of the independent role that the judiciary plays in the judicial process. It did recommend the establishment of a right to appeal a decision of no further action. A number of recommendations of the Truche Report that would retain the independence of the procurators but also place a check on their discretion were submitted in the form of new legislation. Because of the ongoing concerns of a number of political factions, it has not been enacted into law.

Victim Assistance

Another critical issue involves victim assistance. It has already been pointed out that a victim can sue for damages and that the suit can be entertained during a criminal trial. Although this is a progressive procedure, it has flaws. For example, the court is responsible only for enforcing the penal sanction, not the damages awarded a victim. Most damages, therefore, are not paid by the offender because the offender is indigent, refuses to pay, or possibly has not been identified.

Although very little research has been conducted on victimization in France, successive governments have taken steps to address the problem. The first state compensation law was adopted in 1977. It was initially designed for victims of bodily injury but has since been extended to include victims of burglary. Originally, the state was viewed as a secondary source for compensation. The victim was supposed to exhaust efforts at securing damages from the offender. Given the difficulty victims have had with collecting damages from offenders, legislation enacted in 1990 permits a victim to seek compensation through a process that is independent of any criminal proceeding—in some cases, even before a defendant is identified. A Commission for the Compensation of Victims of Crime is found in each of the courts of major jurisdiction. Victims of serious crimes against the person may receive a total compensation for the damages, for example, if they are unable to work for more than a month. If a person is a victim of a property offense, he or she may be entitled to a limited compensation that is determined by the victim’s financial assets.

Legislation was passed in 1986 to create a special system for granting compensation to victims of terrorism. Through the Guarantee Fund for Victims of Acts of Terrorism, compensation is provided for physical and material damages. Funds are also available to the family in the event of death. Finally, an attorney is provided through legal aid for representation in any legal proceeding.

In addition, the National Council for the Prevention of Delinquency was created in 1983. It has corresponding local councils at the department and municipal levels. There are presently more than 413 local associations. A National Institute has been established to train volunteers in victim assistance. The hope is that this training will be extended to include professionals in the field, such as police, judges, medical personnel, and social workers. The work of victim assistance illustrates the efforts to decentralize governmental administration in France. In addition to the formation of local associations, funding for these programs comes from the national ministries of Justice, Women’s Rights, and Welfare, as well as from local grants (Piffaut, 1989).

Corrections

At the end of World War II, the Ministry of Justice turned its attention to reforming the correctional system through the introduction of a progressive regimen. The plan called for the use of a minimum amount of force when handling inmates and the establishment of treatment programs that would be both effective and humane. The scheme was directed at the entire prison population, including long-term prisoners. This progressive regimen was an indication of France’s commitment to a rehabilitation scheme that was to serve as the principal function of the correctional system.

The regimen was composed of five phases. The first phase lasted nine months, during which time the inmate was kept in maximum-security isolation. The inmate was interviewed and evaluated by correctional counselors during this phase. At the end of this period, the inmate was either advanced to the second phase, transferred out of the progressive regimen, or retained in the first phase for further observation. Those who advanced to the second phase would continue to eat and sleep in isolation, but they would be given a work assignment to be performed with other inmates. At that time, the inmates were expected to work at some task, however menial, within the institution. This phase would continue for six to 12 months. The third phase, which lasted for approximately one year, kept the inmate in a separate cell during sleeping hours but allowed all other activities to be carried out in a group environment. Phase four was designed to allow the inmate to work in the private sector while continuing to reside at the prison. This phase could be in effect for up to six years. Finally, the fifth phase was the conditional release of the inmate without supervision, in which the person would be placed on parole for a period of one to three years and then be discharged (Conrad, 1965).

Attempts were also made to build new facilities or redesign old ones to meet the needs of the progressive regimen. Another concern centered on improving recruiting and training of the staff working in these facilities. Because of the lack of funding and—according to some critics—inadequate commitment, they were largely carried out in a piecemeal and sometimes insufficient fashion.

The next significant innovation to the correctional system was the passage of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1958. That code legally created a new position that has had an important impact on the decision-making process of the release of inmates from French penal institutions. The position was that of the judge for the application of punishment, more commonly referred to as the post-sentencing judge. Like the investigating judge, this official is selected from the ranks of judges of the magistracy and serves a three-year term in this capacity.

With this change in the code, the judiciary formally accepted a responsibility that initially was the correctional administrator’s, that is, determining the length of conditions and the appropriate conditions for a person’s incarceration. Prison administrators opposed the concept of the post-sentencing judge from the beginning, on the grounds that judges were not adequately informed about the prison environment and that the scheme would reduce the role of correctional personnel. The role of the post-sentencing judge has received a good deal of attention over the years; its present status will be discussed shortly.

As was the case with many countries committed to a rehabilitation regimen, the French began to question its utility. By the early 1960s, greater attention was directed at making correctional institutions more secure. Although treatment programs were not totally abandoned, they were placed in a new perspective because of the unimpressive results of the existing rehabilitation programs. Moreover, a number of prison disturbances during the first half of the 1970s drew attention to the plight of the correctional community. The result was a series of reforms that were largely responsible for making the prison system what it is today.

According to the Ministry of Justice, the mission of the French penal system is “monitoring individuals placed under judicial authority and preparing them for their future social rehabilitation.” This position is similar to that of many countries. Although this sentencing philosophy expounds multiple purposes for punishment, in the years since 1975, and particularly after 1980, much emphasis has been placed on protecting society and deterring known offenders. Thus, the French have introduced a “get tough” policy on criminals.

Although France has a much lower rate of violent crime than the United States, such crime has been increasing nevertheless. This has caused alarm among the public as well as among officials of the French criminal justice system. The Security and Liberty Law of 1981 had important implications for the correctional system in light of the rise in crime. Its principal goal was to assure swift and certain punishment for those found guilty of criminal offenses. For example, it called for increasing the certainty of sanctioning recidivists. In the past, a person was labeled a recidivist if he or she committed the same offense within five years. Under the Security and Liberty Law, the recidivist label would apply to offenders who committed a similar type of offense, in particular, crimes against the person and property. The law also called for minimum mandatory terms of imprisonment for certain offenses. In cases in which the maximum sentence was 10 years or more, a minimum sentence of two years was imposed. For offenses in which the maximum was less than 10 years, a minimum sentence of one year was called for. Finally, the use of suspended sentences and probation was reduced.

As a result of the changes in both attitude and legislation, the population in French correctional facilities, especially the jails, has dramatically increased. Between January 1975 and January 1995, the number of offenders incarcerated rose from 26,032 to 51,623, and in May 1995, it reached a high of 55,479. In 1997, on average, there were more than 58,000 people incarcerated. During the early years of the period 1975 to 1981, the prison population increased because more offenders were being sentenced to a period of incarceration. From 1981 to 1988, the explanation for the size of the population was attributed to longer sentences of incarceration. Since 1988, longer sentences of incarceration continue to play a significant role in the size of the prison population. Two kinds of offenses—drug trafficking and breaches in the immigration laws—have had a significant role to play in the size of the prison population (Kensey and Tournier, 1997).

On January 1, 2005, the population of French prisons was 59,197. Approximately 66 percent had been sentenced to a term of incarceration, while 34 percent were awaiting trial and had not been convicted of anything. This clearly illustrates the French commitment to protecting society, irrespective of whether a person has yet been found guilty. Of the 39,041 convicted prisoners, 30 percent were serving a term of less than one year; 22.5 percent a term of between one and three years; 12.4 percent a period between three and five years; and 35.7 percent a term of more than five years. Of those receiving a long-term period of incarceration, 1.4 percent received a life sentence (Ministry of Justice, 2006). Although there has been a dramatic increase in incarcerating offenders, it must be placed in a French context, for they are still committed to utilizing noninstitutional sanctions.

The profile of the typical inmate is not surprising. In the prison population, of those sentenced and awaiting trial on January 1, 2005, male inmates represented more than 96 percent of the total population. Approximately 45 percent were under the age of 30, and more than 27 percent were between the ages of 30 and 39. French citizens made up more than 78 percent of the prison population, while more than 21 percent were represented by other nationalities (Ministry of Justice, 2006). The number of foreign prisoners has increased significantly in recent years. Part of the reason has to do with the fact that these offenders are less likely to receive a suspended sentence. The nature of their offenses, such as illegally entering the country, trafficking in drugs, and handling stolen goods influences the decision to impose a period of incarceration (Kensey and Tournier, 1997).

By the middle of 2014, the French prison population had risen above 68,000 and was close to 69,000. The prisons are designed to hold 57,000. Of the roughly 68,000 inmates, 17,000 were awaiting trial. It is noted further that approximately 60 percent of the people in prison are Muslims. Many of these are second-generation Arab immigrants who have failed to integrate into French society. As alluded to earlier, many of these inmates feel disenfranchised. One explanation for the surge in incarcerations was the get-tough policies introduced by former President Nicolas Sarkozy, specifically the mandating of minimum sentences for repeat offenders. To illustrate, if an offender’s original sentence was for three years, that person would be required to serve at least one year as a repeat offender.

As was mentioned in the last section, a new Penal Code was introduced in the 1990s. After three decades of work on the project, the code was implemented in 1994, thus replacing the much revised but archaic Napoleonic code of 1810. Unlike the old code, the new code does not stipulate a maximum or a fixed minimum sentence for all offenses. Although the new code often has increased the severity of the sanctions that can be imposed on an offender, it is important to note that imprisonment is no longer considered the principal method of punishment. Thus, judicial discretion has been enhanced.

The current code also recognizes degrees of culpability in several contexts. For example, it acknowledges more modern views regarding psychiatric disorders. While a person’s diminished mental capacity may reduce his or her legal responsibility, it does not automatically eliminate it, as was the case with the old code. In addition, the old code did not draw a distinction between premeditated murder and second-degree murder; the sentence for both was life imprisonment. With the new code, premeditated murder is punishable with life imprisonment, while a person found guilty of second-degree murder could receive a 30-year sentence. Finally, members of organized crime are subject to harsher sanctions than non-gang members who commit the same offense.

The code acknowledges the emergence of either totally new crimes or variations on old forms of deviance that have received a good deal of attention in the latter half of the twentieth century. Crimes against humanity and breaches of human rights are prominently featured. A significant innovation is the establishment of principles of liability for corporations, which was totally absent in the old code. Offenses associated with organized crime (such as racketeering) and terrorist activities are also acknowledged. Finally, environmental crimes are included, and sexual harassment is recognized as an offense.

The French have divided their criminal offenses into three categories. Crimes are the most serious offenses and can be punished by life imprisonment or a considerable number of years of imprisonment. The French abolished capital punishment in 1981. The principal purpose for sanctioning people who commit crimes in France is their removal from society. Délits are less serious offenses that are punishable by six months to 10 years of incarceration. The purpose of this type of sentence is to educate or coerce the offender. The new code raised the maximum penalty from five to 10 years; it also increased the minimum term of incarceration from two to six months. The justification offered for increasing the minimum term was that short periods of incarceration have failed to either intimidate or rehabilitate. Finally, because the new code abolished imprisonment for petty offenses, the sanctions prescribed for contraventions are either a fine or a noncustodial sentence. The goals of these punishments are to coerce people into obeying the law and to demonstrate to the public that justice is being done.

Organization of the Penitentiary Administration

It should come as no surprise that the correctional system is administered by a highly centralized national bureaucracy (see 

Figure 2.5

). The most perplexing characteristic of the system is that although the French are often at the forefront of creating new ideas for corrections, they leave the actual development of the idea to practitioners in other countries. Parole is the most notable example of this phenomenon. Although its origins are traced to nineteenth-century France, the French did little in the way of experimenting and expanding its use until quite recently. The one possible exception to this trend is the extent to which they have created the role of the post-sentencing judge.

Figure 2.5

 Organization of the Penitentiary Administration

One possible reason for the apparent inability to follow through on their own creative ideas is that the French have lagged behind other countries in the study of criminology, despite the fact that they have established several institutes for that purpose. This can be attributed to both insufficient funding for research and a lack of interest in the study of criminal law. Another reason may be the traditionally low level of crime. In more recent years, however, property crimes and certain types of offenses against the person have increased significantly, especially among the juvenile population. As a result, the French have attempted to improve or reform their correctional institutions, with a tendency to borrow quite heavily from the experiences of other countries.

Ministry of Justice

The Ministry of Justice is responsible for the administration of the correctional system. It is responsible for the legal establishment that sentences people to imprisonment, and it coordinates the system for care and treatment of the offender.

Penitentiary Administration

The Penitentiary Administration is the central bureaucracy (accountable to the minister of justice) that manages the administration of the entire correctional system, which includes the probation service. The central administration is responsible for the recruitment, training, and welfare of the personnel who work within the system. Correctional personnel are recruited civil servants and must sit for a competitive examination to qualify for the various levels within the organizational hierarchy. Personnel are trained at the National School for Penitentiary Administration. People initially pursuing a career as a guard must first pass an entrance examination that is designed to assess general knowledge and physical and psychological compatibility. If successful, the recruit would participate in an eight-month training program. The training would include theoretical courses at the school and an internship component at various correctional facilities. Traditionally, people were promoted from within the ranks of the French prison service. In recent years, however, university graduates have been recruited to enter the service at administrative levels within the bureaucracy.

To facilitate the work of the central administration, the prison service is divided into nine regions. Regional directors and prison wardens help to determine and coordinate the policies and procedures of their correctional facilities in accordance with the wishes of the central administration. Within any region, one is apt to find several different types of correctional units.

In addition, two centralized authorities have responsibility for inspecting the French correctional system. The Inspectorate for the Prison Services is part of the central bureaucracy. It performs five tasks: (1) investigating major disturbances, incidents, or escapes; (2) conducting routine inspections; (3) reviewing the security plans of the facilities; (4) examining systemwide correctional functions; and (5) overseeing the handling of probationers. The Inspectorate for Social Concerns has oversight responsibilities for the health of the inmates and the overall cleanliness of the correctional facilities. This Inspectorate reports to the minister of health (Vagg, 1994).

Types of Institutions

The French have developed three general kinds of correctional facilities: jails, special institutions, and prisons. Each is designed for a particular type of offender. Jails are found throughout the country in close proximity to the courts of major jurisdiction. They are used to detain both the accused before trial as well as convicted offenders whose term of incarceration does not exceed one year. In comparison to most jails in the United States, French jails are small. They were originally built to accommodate 20 to 40 inmates, and the cells were originally designed for single occupancy. Because of the number of inmates being detained in these facilities, there is often serious overcrowding, with two or three people placed in a cell.

French jails have been criticized for many of the same weaknesses identified in the American and British systems. For example, the development of intensive rehabilitation programs has been hampered by the transient nature of the jail population. The French are making an effort to resolve another perennial problem by separating younger offenders from older recidivists. In addition, attempts at work release programs have proved somewhat unsuccessful because of the scarcity of jobs.

Special institutions are established for offenders who are also suffering from a physical handicap or a behavioral disorder that falls short of the legal definition of insanity. These facilities include health centers existing within correctional institutions or separate facilities such as sanatoriums or psychiatric hospitals. The French also have created special units for the chronic recidivist. This measure is referred to as penal guardianship.

Prisons are further subdivided into three categories: detention centers, penitentiary centers, and high-security facilities. A nationally centralized classification unit at Fresnes carries out diagnostic testing to determine where the convicted offender should serve time. Each institution, whether a detention center, penitentiary center, or high-security facility, offers variations on the prison regimen designed to meet the diverse needs of the inmate population. For example, most high-security prisons follow a traditional model regarding inmate rules. Some have special security centers for the more dangerous offenders.

Detention centers have adopted a collaborative model intended to enhance the relationship between inmates and staff. Detention centers afford the offender greater degrees of freedom and individual responsibility with both closed and open types of facilities. It should be noted that not all offenders are processed through the central classification unit at Fresnes. Inmates who serve a fairly short term of incarceration are classified at the local jail where they were held during the course of the trial.

Irrespective of which type of prison a person is sent to, one of the missions of the penal system is to prepare inmates for life outside the correctional facility. This is achieved through various activities. For example, prisoners have a right to work. Although work is voluntary, it enables the inmate to earn money. This kind of employment can occur within or outside the prison. Another activity is education or vocational training. It comes as no surprise that the illiteracy rate is higher in prisons than within the general population. The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Education have established agreements that enable inmates to pursue a wide variety of educational programs from literacy courses to preparation for admission to universities. The Ministry of Social Affairs, Employment, and Solidarity are active in providing inmates with vocational training programs. The Ministry of Culture assists with providing workshops in various fields of the arts. Public libraries assist with the operation of prison libraries. Finally, there are sports facilities located at almost 200 correctional institutions.

It was mentioned earlier that there has been a serious problem with overcrowding in French jails. The issue of overcrowding has also impacted the prison system. In 2002, the Ministry of Justice began a significant building project to address overcrowding in the prisons. Building began on 27 new facilities, seven of them specifically designed for young offenders.

Judge for the Application of Punishment

With the passage of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1958, the judge for the application of punishment (more commonly referred to as the post-sentencing judge) was given the responsibility of controlling the post-sentencing phase of the criminal process. The rationale for this innovation was based on the argument that both a judicial decision arrived at during the course of a trial and the implementation of that decision in a penitentiary was part of the same process. The thinking went that it was illogical and possibly harmful to disrupt the continuity of the decision by placing it in the hands of two distinct authorities. The post-sentencing judge was the French prescription for assuring that there would be continuity in the execution and application of the judicial decision.

The post-sentencing judge is a regular member of the branch of the magistracy that adjudicates cases in court. He or she is selected for a three-year term by the chief judge in a district of a court of major jurisdiction (although the nominee can refuse the appointment). The number of judges per district assigned to this special responsibility varies according to the type of correctional institutions found in each particular district. Thus, French judges serve the courts in one of four capacities: investigating judge, liberty and detention judge, trial judge, or post-sentencing judge. When not carrying out special sentencing responsibilities, the post-sentencing judge sits in a court and adjudicates cases with other judges.

Most who comment on the role of the post-sentencing judge have described it as having a dual purpose. One is administrative in nature, for the judge is part of the correctional institution’s oversight committee. In this capacity, the judge receives copies of all instructions sent by the central prison authorities to the prisons and jails in his or her jurisdiction. He or she is informed of all changes in disciplinary and security matters and is kept apprised of all disciplinary actions. He or she is also expected to keep abreast of the conditions of the physical plant, inmate safety and security, and various rehabilitation programs. Addition ally, the judge must visit the institution once a month and meet with individual inmates on request. Decisions that pertain to the management of the prison are not made by the judge, for he or she has no authority over the daily operations of the institution. Such responsibilities are left to the regional directors and wardens of the various correctional facilities.

The other responsibility of a post-sentencing judge is distinctly judicial in nature. It is in this context that the significant role of the magistracy’s relationship to the correctional community becomes apparent. The judge has the authority to alter the inmate’s sentence and to influence the individual’s regimen. This is a central feature of the rehabilitation process for most inmates.

The role of the post-sentencing judge has been the subject of much criticism. Correctional administrators have long opposed the position on the grounds that although judges are not truly knowledgeable of the work in the correctional community, they are empowered to make decisions that influence the inmate population. Inmates, as well as some former post-sentencing judges, complained that judges are restricted in altering an inmate’s sentence by the fact that they are largely dependent on information provided by the prison authorities. Some trial judges have opposed the independent nature of the office. Their complaint was that the post-sentencing judge’s decision to change an offender’s sentence (originally imposed by the trial judge) was not subject to appeal or review as was the case with the original sentence.

Because of adverse criticism from so many quarters, interest in serving as a post-sentencing judge declined. Trial judges who did accept the position were often viewed by their colleagues as “second-class” members of the magistracy. It was suggested that the system could be improved if the role and standing of the post-sentencing judge was altered somewhat. In particular, it was suggested that a method of reviewing the judge’s decisions should be established (Chemithe and Strasburg, 1978).

As a result of these criticisms, the role of the post-sentencing judge was clarified through a revision in the code. Article 722 of the Code of Criminal Procedure explains the principal duties.

At each penitentiary establishment, the judge for the application of punishments shall determine for each convict the principal modalities of penitentiary treatment. In accordance with the limits and conditions provided by law, the judge shall accord placements on the outside, semiliberty, reductions, fractionings and suspensions of penalties, authorizations for leaves under escort, permissions for leave, [and] parole, or the judge shall bring the matter before the court competent to arrange the execution of the punishment. Except in emergency, the judge shall rule after advice from the commission on the application of punishments.

The commission on the application of punishments will be explained shortly. The code also states that “[e]xcept in emergencies the judge for the application of punishments shall also give his or her opinion, on the transfer of convicts from one establishment to another.” Finally, in a decree issued in 1986, the status of the post-sentencing judge was raised to that of a specialist. It is hoped that this enhanced status will encourage more judges to serve in this capacity.

There are five principal methods by which a post-sentencing judge can act to alter an inmate’s sanction of incarceration. Parole (traditionally called “conditional liberty”) at one time could be granted only by the minister of justice. In 1972, the post-sentencing judge was delegated complete authority to issue a parole for inmates serving a term of three years or less. As approximately two-thirds of all sentences fall within this range, this first method was considered a significant change. For people serving a longer term, the judge may recommend parole but must have it approved by the minister of justice. Parole is usually granted to first-time offenders after one-half of the term is served, to recidivists after two-thirds of the term is served, to chronic recidivists after three-fourths of the term is served, and to people receiving a life sentence after 15 years (Chemithe and Strasburg, 1978). It is alleged that this change has enabled the system to work more effectively. This method of early release thus has been utilized more frequently.

The 1972 legislation that introduced changes in parole created a second method for reducing time served: sentence reduction. Each year, an inmate’s disciplinary record is reviewed by the post-sentencing judge. In most cases, the judge reduces the person’s sentence for good behavior. Reductions average about seven days per month for a sentence that is under one year, while inmates serving longer sentences have had as much as three months per year eliminated from their original sentence. Two groups of people, however, are excluded from this scheme: people sentenced to less than three months and chronic recidivists. A sentence is not necessarily a permanent reward for good conduct. A judge can retract all or part of the reduction if the inmate displays recalcitrant conduct in the future (Chemithe and Strasburg, 1978).

The third method, work release, is a system that allows the inmate to work outside the confines of the correctional institution. The nonworking hours are spent at a halfway house or a local jail. The costs of maintaining the inmate in the institution are deducted from his or her wages. Work release is usually granted to people during the last six to 12 months of their sentence. People who are about to be released on parole are also eligible for work release. This is usually done to test their ability to cooperate with the authorities under this regimen.

The fourth method, the granting of leaves from prison, originally was used for emergency purposes, such as an illness or death in the family. Since 1975, the scheme has been expanded to test the inmate’s ability to function outside the confines of the prison for short periods of time. Inmates who are housed in detention centers and who have served one-third of their sentence are eligible for leaves of up to 10 days each year. Inmates who are being held in more secure facilities and who have approximately three years remaining on their sentence are granted three days’ leave per year.

The fifth method, temporary suspension, has been available since 1975 but is used infrequently. It permits the judge to suspend the sentence of a person convicted of a misdemeanor for up to three months in cases of serious personal emergencies. An alternative to this scheme is to have the inmate continue to serve part of the sentence on weekends. In extraordinary situations, in which the request is for a period longer than three months, the judge’s order must be approved by a court of major jurisdiction. The time suspended does not count toward the completion of the sentence.

Finally, it should be noted that offenders sentenced to less than one year of incarceration are eligible for day and work release. While work release is self-explanatory (i.e., a release for the purpose of employment), day release enables the offender to participate, for example, in educational activities, seeking employment, or receiving medical treatment. Electronic monitoring enables the person to serve part of his or her sentence while residing at home. The person must participate in various programs appropriate to the offense that are in accord with the goal of rehabilitation and that follow a specific daily schedule (see Reuflet in Padfield, vanZyl Smit, and Dunkel, 2012).

Commission on the Application of Punishments

The post-sentencing judge, though afforded a good deal of discretion in altering an inmate’s sentence, is not totally independent. This point was reinforced in the aforementioned reference to Article 722 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Judges are assisted in their work by a commission on the application of punishments, of which the judge serves as the president. Thus, it is a commission that annually reviews each case. A commission is created for each prison. Members include the warden, a procurator, the personnel director of the prison, the chief of supervision of the prison, a prison educator, a psychiatrist, a social worker, and a doctor. The post-sentencing judge also can appoint other people to serve on a temporary basis at his or her discretion.

Noninstitutional Sanctions

The French have been slow in developing noninstitutional sanctions. In recent years, they have explored alternatives to incarceration, partly because of the high cost of imprisonment. Currently, there are four methods for imposing a noninstitutional sentence.

A simple suspension is designed for the offender who has not been sentenced to imprisonment during the preceding five years. Article 735 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that “[i]f the convict benefiting from the simple suspension of imprisonment does not commit, during a period of five years after the sentence, a common law felony or délit followed by a new sentence of either a felony penalty or a correctional prison penalty without suspension, the suspended conviction shall be considered void.” The offender is still obliged to pay any damages or court costs rendered by the court.

The use of the suspended sentence received a good deal of adverse publicity in France, especially when a violent offender was freed through a suspended sentence and subsequently committed a second violent offense. The Security and Liberty Law of 1981 reduced the use of the suspended sentence. Now, anyone who is convicted of a violent crime must serve a minimum term in prison. Recidivists are no longer eligible for a suspended sentence. Civil libertarians opposed this measure for obvious reasons, and a large segment of the French trial judges opposed its passage on the grounds that it would curtail the independence of the judiciary.

A suspension of the sentence with probation is another alternative. What is required in such instances is that the offense is minor and the probability exists that the offender will not commit another offense. This is based on both the offender’s previous record, if any, and his or her conduct during the course of the proceedings. The offender is placed on probation for a period of three to five years. If the person is not convicted of another offense, the sentence is nullified.

Each court of major jurisdiction has a committee devoted to assistance for liberated convicts. The committee is composed of probation officers, educators, and volunteers. Before 1986, the post-sentencing judge was the president of this committee. Today, that is no longer the case. Nevertheless, the work of the probation department is under the control of a post-sentencing judge. While a probation director is assigned the responsibility of organizing and managing the service, it is the post-sentencing judge who assigns to probation officers specific offenders who have been placed on probation, parole, or some other form of noninstitutional supervision. Probation officers attempt to assist the offender in resocialization efforts and are required to keep the judge apprised of the individual’s progress. Whereas a post-sentencing judge has the authority to revoke a parole because of violations of the agreement, only a trial judge can revoke a probation order. A post-sentencing judge who thinks that the probation should be revoked must submit such a request for approval to the trial judge that originally ordered the probation.

The newest noninstitutional sanction is the community service order. Introduced in 1983, it involves performing 40 to 240 hours of unpaid work over a period of time that is not to exceed 18 months. It is designed for offenders who have a very limited criminal history and who have not been convicted of a serious offense in the previous five years. The order can be applied to adults and juveniles above the age of 16.

A community service order can be imposed along with other sanctions or used as a substitute for another form of punishment. Unlike other forms of sanctioning, the offender must agree to community service. This is required in order to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that a person cannot be “required to perform forced or compulsory labor.” The work is performed for either a public organization, a public institution, or an approved association that has a social function. Much of the actual work involves the maintenance of the environment, buildings, or equipment of the organization. Although a trial judge imposes this sanction, it is the responsibility of a post-sentencing judge to oversee its execution.

Initially, the community service order was not utilized to any significant degree. In 1985, only 2 percent of those sentenced received such a sanction. Among the reasons cited for the paucity of its use were the difficulty in finding work, the absence of a work aptitude among the offenders, and the belief among judges that it be applied in a restrictive fashion. It appears that the community service order was used more often as a substitute sanction for driving offenses than for any other type of offense (Ezratty-Bader, 1989; Pradel, 1987). This view has changed significantly in recent years, as community service orders represent more than 16 percent of the noninstitutional sanctions.

Fines are another type of noninstitutional sanction. A fine can be imposed upon people who commit either a délit or a contravention. Fines can be imposed alone or along with another institutional or noninstitutional sanction.

Juvenile Justice

The French usually cite 1945 as the year in which they embarked upon a plan to develop a new juvenile justice system. Most authorities attribute the advent of this movement to the fact that the Ministry of Justice took over the administration of the correctional system from the Ministry of the Interior. Prior to that date, the treatment of juveniles was undertaken in the penitentiary setting.

Once the Ministry of Justice was charged with this new responsibility, change was in the offing. At first, the advances were largely in the areas of establishing new institutions and procedures in the processing of delinquents. The implementation of changes in the manner of treating juveniles was considerably slower. It has been suggested that this was attributed to the fact that France was still a rural society after the war (Poullain and Cirba, 1976). People were content to believe that social stability would return to both the home and personal lives of people during the postwar period. Moreover, they believed that there would be a resurgence in the adherence to and applicability of the Catholic ethics that had been the cornerstone of the rural social setting. This was not forthcoming.

As France became more urbanized and industrialized, the old rural values were swept aside. Changes in the social structure occurred more rapidly than ever before. Although the economic and social fortunes of a large segment of the population improved, this was accompanied by new forms of social maladjustment. It was not until the early 1950s that attempts were made to develop new methods of treatment and intervention for the delinquent youth.

Since the 1960s, the French have experienced an increase in juvenile crime. It was especially acute during the 1980s. Property crimes continue to lead the list of offenses, but there has been a marked rise in the number of violent offenses. The Ministry of the Interior has estimated that the number of juvenile delinquents has risen from 75,846 in 1974 to 180,382 in 2000. Moreover, 21 percent of all crime is attributed to them (Gendrot, in Muncie and Goldson, 2006). The juvenile justice system that was established after the war is the principal mechanism mandated to cope with this issue.

The juvenile justice system has been based on two central premises. The juvenile judge is expected to be actively involved in the entire process, from the initial contact with the system through termination of the treatment program. The other premise emphasized the importance of treatment, rather than punishment, for the delinquent offender. Therefore, the French juvenile justice system promoted a paternalistic social welfare-oriented approach to intervention. While principles of due process often were ignored in the application of this process, one must keep in mind that the juvenile was usually an active participant in decisions that relate to the treatment process (Hackler, Garapon, Frigon, and Knight, 1986).

The French had been committed, at least in theory, to a treatment model for juvenile delinquents. The model was based on four principles: (1) treatment must be individualized if the person is going to be stimulated to change in personality; (2) treatment should occur in an environment with which the juvenile is familiar (there is a recognition that a person may have to be temporarily removed from his or her environment, but attempts should not be made to sever established relationships); (3) treatment must be available on a continuous basis if there is going to be a sincere commitment to transforming the delinquent’s personality; and (4) treatment must be flexible. The judge as well as the staff of the rehabilitation program should be in frequent contact with one another to assure that the needs of the individual, rather than the goals of a particular institution, are being met. Thus, the institutional status quo should not be defended or justified at the expense of curtailing innovative programs or treatment methods (Poullain and Cirba, 1976).

For years the treatment model for juvenile delinquents viewed that population as being in danger. This model has not been abandoned totally. Nevertheless, the rise in youth crime, in particular in the banlieues, or deprived areas, which consist of large housing projects often located on the outskirts of a city and home to many immigrant groups, caused the authorities a good deal of concern. In addition, the urban rioting that periodically erupted has often occurred in these deprived areas and involved a significant number of Muslim youths. Tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims in France were discussed earlier. The confrontations with this select group of Muslim youths only exacerbate that situation further. As such, some delinquents are no longer viewed as in danger; rather, they are perceived as the danger.

This perception has led to some policy changes regarding the manner in which the justice system handles juveniles. To begin, it is important to remember that legislation was adopted in 1995 that explained the role of law enforcement. Among the goals assigned to the police were to assure a sense of public security and to maintain public order. Those goals had been threatened in recent years, in particular by rioting youths. This led to a policy that partially deemphasized traditional crime-prevention strategies and focused on the goals of public security and public order. As mentioned earlier, legislation was introduced that called for repeat offenders, both adults and juveniles, to receive at least a minimum sentence of confinement. Also the policy of sanctioning juveniles between 16 and 18 years of age to only half the period of incarceration that would be assessed for an adult for the same offense was amended to permit longer periods of incarceration for youths.

A second piece of legislation, referred to as security detention, was designed for offenders, again both adults and juveniles, who were still deemed dangerous after they had completed their sentences. The law called for the person to be sent to a special center that was designed to offer additional treatment for his or her psychological disorder. This order could be renewed until the person was no longer considered dangerous. The government’s entire strategy was to treat more juveniles like adults, that is, juveniles were responsible for their actions and should be treated as such. At the same time, there was also a renewed emphasis on parents being held more accountable for the behavior of their children (Terrio, 2009; Wyvekens in Crawford, 2009).

The importance of public security and getting tough on criminals, including juvenile offenders, continued into the twenty-first century. Critics of this toughening stance toward juveniles have argued that the two central premises of the French juvenile justice system alluded to above have essentially been compromised. First, while the juvenile judge remains central to and actively involved in the juvenile justice process, the role of the procurator has been enhanced in the more serious cases. Second, the emphasis placed on treatment and education has been compromised with the new objective to punish young offenders for behavior for which they must be held accountable (see Bailleau and Cortuyvels in Body-Gendrot et al., 2014). Of course, the proponents of the get-tough policy maintain that society has changed, in some ways significantly, from the time when a paternalistic social welfare-oriented approach to juvenile delinquency was espoused by most people. As such, those societal changes have led to the view that the social-welfare model be tempered, but not totally abandoned.

Juvenile Courts

Before describing the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts and the personnel involved with the juvenile justice system, it is important to explain how juveniles are classified according to their age and level of criminal responsibility.

Responsibility of Juveniles

In determining the age of criminal responsibility, the French take into consideration the age of the offender and the type of offense committed. The age of full adult responsibility in France is 18. If a person is between the ages of 16 and 17, a full penal sanction can be imposed if the judge deems it appropriate under the circumstances of the case, which usually focus solely on the type of offense committed.

Juveniles between the ages of 13 and 15 can also receive a penal sanction if the offense is serious, but the Penal Code requires that the sentence be shortened in these cases. Usually, the length of incarceration is one-half of that which could normally be imposed on an adult. In most cases, however, the judge attempts to impose a short noninstitutional sentence whenever possible.

Until the twenty-first century, children under 13 years of age were protected from any type of criminal proceedings; they were dealt with informally by social welfare agencies or the juvenile court. This did not preclude the possibility that civil proceedings could be initiated with the purpose of protecting the child. In 2002, however, the law was changed to permit, under exceptional circumstances, the imposition of a penal sanction on a child as young as 10. Such a sanction is designed to educate and rehabilitate the individual. If these efforts are unsuccessful, the child would be placed in foster care.

Personnel

Two kinds of courts in France’s judicial hierarchy specialize in juvenile matters. Young people between the ages of 16 and 17 who have been charged with committing a crime have the case adjudicated in the court of assize for juveniles. This court of assize is composed of a judge from the district court of appeals, two juvenile judges, and nine jurors. It was pointed out earlier how a magistrate of the bench could specialize in certain judicial activities by becoming an investigating judge, a liberty and detention judge, or a post-sentencing judge. A fourth method of specialization is to become a juvenile judge. It is from the ranks of these juvenile judges that the rest of the bench is formed to hear cases in a court of assize for juveniles.

The juvenile judges not only work in this area full time, but they are also given special training to prepare them to carry out this responsibility. One of the criticisms of the French system, however, is the concern that the National School for the Judiciary does not offer enough training for these judges. Attempts are apparently under way to reform the curriculum and to offer a continuing education program for juvenile judges.

The other court that handles juvenile matters is the juvenile court, which is part of the court of major jurisdiction. This court is composed of one juvenile judge and two lay assessors. The assessors are citizens who have indicated a special interest in juvenile problems. Young people under the age of 18 who have either committed a délit or a contravention, or are considered in need of help, have the matter resolved in a juvenile court. The latter group are often victims of a noncriminal social condition beyond their control—an obvious example being child neglect. Thus, the juvenile court has both criminal and civil jurisdiction in matters involving young people.

The procurator is another person involved with juvenile matters. Responsible for initiating a public prosecution when a criminal offense has been committed, the procurator bases his or her decision upon either a police report or his or her own preliminary investigation into the matter. It already has been illustrated that procurators have an organizational hierarchy that in many respects roughly mirrors that of the courts. Unlike judges, who may specialize in juvenile matters, procurators do not complement that system with specialists of their own. This has been identified by some as an organizational problem facing the administration of the juvenile justice system. At this time, however, there does not appear to be any attempt to change the status quo. The reason for the lack of reform in this area may be attributed to the dominant role that the juvenile judge plays in the entire process. In addition to judges and procurators, probation officers and specialists who work for the various welfare agencies that provide treatment services for delinquents also have a significant role to play in the process of handling delinquent youths.

The procedures used in the courts of assize for juveniles are the same as those for adults who are tried in the regular courts of assize. The procedures in the juvenile courts are not as formal because the charges against the delinquent are not deemed as serious. Moreover, the philosophy of the juvenile court has been similar to that found in some other countries; the court perceives its main task as determining an appropriate form of treatment for the child rather than establishing the offender’s guilt.

Therefore, in civil and criminal cases in which the offense was not considered serious, the proceedings usually took on a protective appearance. What is deemed to be in the best interests of the child, at least from the court’s point of view, was considered of paramount importance. In most cases, the juvenile was an active participant in determining the court’s ultimate decision. The inquisitorial style of formal and informal proceedings allowed the judge to play an active role in both questioning and negotiating with the juvenile as to what was in his or her best interests (Hackler et al., 1986; Hackler and Garapon, 1986).

The child and his or her parents or guardians must attend the juvenile hearing. In addition to the regular members of the court (judges, jurors or lay assessors, a procurator, defense counsel, and a probation officer), other experts who have knowledge of or expertise in the case (such as psychologists, teachers, and social workers) can be called to assist the court in the determination of the best course of action for the juvenile’s welfare.

Disposition

How a case is disposed of is dependent on the nature of the offense and which agents of the justice system are involved in the case. If the police are initially involved, they can simply record the offense and then release the juvenile. If the offense is significant, the police turn the matter over to a procurator, because only the procurator can file formal charges. The police can detain a juvenile for up to 24 hours in a police cell. The period of detention for drug cases is extended to 48 hours.

Once the procurator receives a case, he or she can drop it, send it on to a juvenile judge, or—if the case involves a serious crime—request that an investigating judge conduct an investigation. A procurator may suggest that a juvenile be detained but does not have the authority to issue such an order. Only a juvenile judge or a liberty and detention judge has this authority. A juvenile who is detained would be placed in a juvenile wing of an adult prison.

Most delinquency cases are handled by a juvenile court judge. The manner in which the case is handled is largely dependent on whether the juvenile might be subjected to a period of incarceration. If incarceration is the recommended sanction, the case must be heard in a trial court. Most cases, however, do not lead to a period of incarceration. Instead, they are handled informally in the judge’s office. Irrespective of the decision about whether to incarcerate, the ultimate goal of the sanction is, ideally, to reform the young offender. As noted earlier, as of January 1, 2005, the number of people either sentenced to prison or incarcerated while awaiting trial was 59,197. Of these, only 1.2 percent were under the age of 18 (Ministry of Justice, 2006).

In September 2011, the total prison population in France was approximately 64,000, of which 25 percent were held in pretrial detention. Of the total number incarcerated, 661 were juveniles between 16 and 17 years of age (Ministry of Justice, 2012).

The French emphasize cooperation of the juvenile, elicited through paternalistic persuasion by the juvenile judge. This approach is based on the premise that because the juvenile is involved in a conflict, the issue will not be resolved unless he or she actively participates in a meaningful way in its resolution (Hackler et al., 1986; Hackler and Garapon, 1986).

Recently, criticism has been directed at juvenile cases that are handled informally in a judge’s chambers. At issue is the concern that the power and authority of the judge may reduce the likelihood that the juvenile’s legal rights are protected. Moreover, in those cases handled more formally in the juvenile court, critics contend that the court’s traditional role of protecting the young person is at risk as a result, in part, because of the recent legislation designed to make young offenders more personally accountable for their actions (Terrio, 2009).

Juvenile Facilities

With the exception of the adult prisons that have a juvenile wing attached to them (which is often very small), there are no closed facilities for juvenile delinquents. Emphasis is placed on keeping the juvenile in close contact with the community at large. Recently, the French have established special institutions for young repeat offenders. They are closed secure facilities designed to handle about 12 young people, with a staff made up of social workers and educators. The French traditionally classify juvenile treatment centers as either long-term or temporary-care facilities.

Both types of facilities are referred to as foyers—which roughly means “places of welcoming”—and have the characteristics of group homes. Foyers can be small homes or larger facilities. They can be run by public agencies, private agencies, or religious orders. They vary to some degree in their treatment philosophy: some have a strict regimen while others are more permissive. No attempt is made to separate delinquent from nondelinquent youths in these facilities. The basic assumption is that both are in need of care. Thus, the reasons bringing them to the attention of the authorities are not significant at this stage of the process.

Irrespective of who operates the foyer, the juvenile judge has the authority of oversight. He or she ultimately determines where a juvenile will be sent for either long-term or temporary care. It has been suggested that delinquents in France have traditionally viewed juvenile judges as a source of help because of their active involvement in the placement of a youth in a foyer and continued monitoring of the juvenile’s progress with the probation or social worker assigned to the case (Hackler et al., 1986).

While many foyers offer residential facilities, some are designed as educational guidance and open treatment centers that provide training and counseling only during the day. Other methods of disposing of juvenile cases include fines, probation, suspended sentences, and community service orders. A juvenile court judge is expected to monitor the juvenile’s progress in all cases. The judge has the authority to revise the sanction as he or she sees fit. Thus, the judge can modify the sentence, revoke the probation, order an early release, or impose an institutional sanction.

Earlier in this chapter the banlieues, or deprived areas, were mentioned. They are noted for a good deal of crime and on occasion civil unrest. By the twenty-first century, the Ministry of Justice had established “houses of justice” in these areas. They are designed to provide the youths of the deprived community with a variety of social services including: treatment, mediation, victim support, and information about rights. In 2002, there were 84 centers providing these kinds of services (de Maillard and Roche, 2004).

Critical Issues

The French have focused their attention on at least two critical issues that have confronted their juvenile justice system: treatment and diversion. Although there are other issues, such as the need to improve communications between professionals working in the system and to upgrade the training of these professionals, most of the attention appears to center on treatment and diversion.

The central issue confronting treatment programs is how to provide the most effective, yet open style of regimen. Over the years, the French have made significant strides in moving away from a closed treatment model. Thus, like other countries, the French are grappling with the problem of developing programs that are open, humane, and individualized, yet also effective at lowering the rates of recidivism.

The French have recognized the value of developing diversion programs for both delinquent and nondelinquent youths. Juvenile court judges are attempting to divert more delinquents away from the formal adjudication process in order to avoid labeling the youths as delinquent. The educational guidance and open treatment centers assist in this process. The services at these centers also are utilized by nondelinquent youths. Young people in need of assistance can seek counseling at these centers without a referral from a juvenile court or a youth agency.

The police too have become more active in diverting juveniles away from the formal system. In addition to their involvement in youth clubs, which was explained in the section on the police, the police also have established juvenile squads. These squads have three principal responsibilities. They maintain a liaison with other professionals and agencies involved in the juvenile justice process in order to alert them to potential problems and to refer specific juveniles—who are in trouble and in need of assistance—to them. Additionally, they have established programs, conferences, and exhibits that are directed at informing juveniles about the dangers and consequences of involvement in criminal activity.

Another form of diversion is the community service order, introduced in France in 1983 and available to both adults and juveniles. Community service involves performing unpaid work for a specific number of hours over a predetermined period of time. It was suggested in the previous section that this type of sanction has not been utilized extensively. With reference to juveniles, part of the problem lies in the fact that work is difficult to find and many offenders lack an aptitude for it.

The government has also suggested an alternative scheme—based on the community service model but with a significant difference. What is being suggested is to offer a choice to young offenders between the ages of 16 and 25 who have received a prison sentence. They can either serve their time or participate in an occupational training program provided by private agencies. The offender is not to be paid, and the term of training mirrors the length of time served in a prison setting. The goal is to teach offenders basic work habits and possibly enable them to secure employment upon release (Pradel, 1987).

With the creation of the National Council for the Prevention of Delinquency in 1983, and the subsequent establishment of local councils for crime prevention, other strategies have been developed to address problems confronting young people. Job training programs have been established, and mentoring has been offered on how to find a job. National and local grants have been provided for both educational and recreational projects. In addition, programs have been created for youths involved with illicit drugs. The opportunity for disadvantaged youths to attend summer camps continues, and other organized activities have been developed for youths to participate in throughout the summer.

It has been suggested that one of the most important features of this endeavor is the permanent establishment of about 100 youth centers in many of the larger cities and towns. These centers provide a place for young people to associate with one another in a constructive setting and enable local individuals and organizations to work with young people.

In addition to various community service ventures, electronic surveillance is another technical device that enables the youthful offender to remain in the general population. Legislation in 2014 introduced civic training courses that can be imposed on people between the ages of 13 and 18 years of age. Finally, administrative protection orders can be issued in the event the young person is at risk. Risk could involve health, safety, education, or morality issues. Initially, the parents’ consent is sought for such actions, but a juvenile court judge can issue a care order that would remove the young person from his or her home.

Summary

This chapter has presented the reader with an in-depth introduction to the French criminal justice system. Following a general appraisal of the government, the major components of the system—the police, judiciary, law, corrections, and juvenile justice—were surveyed. In addition to highlighting some of the historical antecedents, the organization and administration of the system was explained, the various roles of the practitioners were described, the legal process was examined, and some of the critical issues facing the system were assessed.

Although France has become an industrially prosperous country, its political history over the past 200 years has been characterized as unstable. This is partially attributed to the French penchant for approaching politics with an almost uncompromising ideological stance, as they have tended to commit themselves in an unbending fashion to the purity and rationality of their political ideas. This, in turn, has reduced their ability to resolve disputes through negotiation.

A central feature of French political thought since the Enlightenment has been the desire to establish a political system that assures liberty for all. However, the government often appears to stress the need for imposing an excessive amount of authority to assure that freedom. The political history of the country, with its curious juxtaposition of liberty and authority, has significant implications for the justice system.

For the student of the Anglo-American justice system, the French model clearly illustrates how the inquisitorial style of the Romano-Germanic law differs from that of the common law. Of particular interest is the role that the office of the judge plays in the criminal process. From the investigating judge at the preliminary investigation and the liberty and detention judge at the pretrial phase, to the trial judge in the courtroom, and on to the post-sentencing judge in the correctional community, these people have been trained and entrusted to assure that justice is served in the administration of that process. There is a rationality to this system that is alien to the common law tradition.

Finally, of equal interest is the extent to which a large, centralized bureaucracy can dominate and regulate the lives of the citizenry, yet maintain a commitment to democratic principles. In the realm of criminal justice, the law enforcement system is an example of that phenomenon in action. The form of the system’s institutions and established procedures explain only part of the reason for the system’s effectiveness, however. Another significant factor is related to the selection of the personnel who work within the system. The way the various branches of the legal profession are trained as well as the multiple-level entry scheme of the police are particularly noteworthy. Thus, the Romano-Germanic legal system serves as a striking contrast to the methods employed in the common law tradition: it offers a new perspective from which to reflect upon the numerous procedural, policy, and personnel issues that confront the student of criminal justice.

Book Reference

Terrill, R. J. (2016). World criminal justice systems: A comparative survey. Routledge.