If criminologists and psychologists have studied practitioners’ ethics, they have not integrated the legal system into offender treatment theory. Offender treatment models have, moreover, not taken...

Law as an extrinsic responsivity factor: What’s just is what works!:

The legal profession, if not the world, is in crisis. According to the Chinese, the written character for 'crisis' also denotes danger and opportunity, simultaneously.' If crisis brings opportunity, then the profession is at a turning point.

The Future of the Legal Profession

In France, prison leave (permission) is awarded to prisoners by a reentry judge (juge de l’application des peines, JAP) as part of a multi-agency commission, a process that takes place in prison and comprises the governor, prison and probation officers, and the prosecutor. Numerous rules govern this measure. This paper draws upon a number of previous research studies conducted by the author on the following topics: the legal theorisation of a sentence’s implementation (Author 1994 , 2017a); a quantitative-qualitative study of JAPs’ practices, hearings and rulings (Author 2014); and a mixed method study of a so-called swift release procedure (Author 2017b). Consequently, two series of issues are identified: The first issue pertains to the lack of due process principles governing the decision-making process. Prisoners who apply for permissions have no ‘voice’, according to Tyler’s (2012) definition of the term. The second issue is connected to the very rationale behind permissions. Before an Act of 26 March 2019, permissions were primarily concerned with ensuring that prisoners’ reentry process was prepared, that prisoners could complete the steps required to prepare for their release and that they could maintain contact with their loved ones and support systems. They also represented a form of test, used by JAPs to ensure that prisoners could be trusted in the outside world. In other words, they were focused on resettlement and rehabilitation. However, the 2019 Act transferred most of the decision-making process to prison governors. There is now a fear that because their main interest is on maintaining order, permission allocation will shift from an emphasis on reentry-rehabilitation to behavioural criteria and the local situation regarding overcrowding.

French Prison Day Leave and the Rationale Behind It: Resocialisation or Prison Management?

In France, sanctions for non-compliance with community sentences and early release measures are imposed by special courts devoted to the implementation of sentences: the Juge de l’application des peines QAP) and, for more serious cases, a three JAP court, the Tribunal de l’application des peines (TAP). Given that France is a written law country and not a common law country, courts are not allowed to create legal rules, laws or decrees that dictate what they can and cannot do. As a result, legal provisions expressly prescribe what constitutes non-compliance. Nevertheless, the special courts devoted to the implementation of sentences have considerable discretion. Previous research has shown that, in practice, these courts are very desistance and rehabilitation oriented. Therefore, they tend to be reluctant to activate the recall process except in cases involving serious non-compliance (such as reoffending, escape or repeat violations). The courts also tailor their reaction to the personal circumstances of the offender. To provide insights into the nature and impact of the compliance strategies employed by JAPs, the present chapter will draw, on the one hand, upon a large-scale research study that explored the professional culture of JAPs and, on the other hand, upon a smaller-scale research study that examined TAPs’ practices of recall.

Martine Herzog-Evans

Papers

Offender Recall for Non-Compliance in France and Fairness: An Analysis of ‘Sentences Implementation Courts’ Practices