Abstract
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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Belenko, S. (2011) Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review 2000 Update. New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
Benjamin, G. A. H., Darling, E. J. and Sales, B. (1990) ‘The Prevalence of Depression, Alcohol Abuse, and Cocaine Abuse Among United-States Lawyers’. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (13), 233–246.
Berman, G. and Feinblatt, J. (2005) Good Courts. The Case for Problem-Solving Justice. New York: The New Press.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Martin, S. and Tonry, M. (Eds) (1983) Research on Sentencing: The Search for Reform. 2 volumes. Washington: National Academy Press.
Bottoms, A. (2001) ‘Compliance with Community Penalties’. in A. Bottoms, L. Gelsthorpe and S. Rex (Eds) Community Penalties: Change and Challenge (pp. 87–116). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Burke, K. and Leben, S. (2007) Procedural Fairness: A Key Ingredient in Public Satisfaction A White Paper of the American Judges Association. http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/htdocs/AJAWhitePaper9–26–07.pdf (accessed 2 July 2012).
Cid, J. and Tebar, B. (2012) ‘Revoking Early Conditional Release Measures in Spain’. European Journal of Probation 4(1), 112–124.
Collins, H. (2007) ‘A Consideration of Discretion, Offender Attributes and the Process of Recall’. in N. Padfield (Ed.) Who to Release, Parole Fairness and Criminal Justice (pp. 159–172). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Daicoff, S. (2011) ‘The Future of the Legal Profession’. Monash University Law Review 37(1), 7–32.
Daicoff, S. (2009) ‘Collaborative Law: A New Tool for the Lawyer’s Toolkit’, Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy 20, 113–140.
Daicoff, S. (2006) Lawyer Know Thyself A Psychological Analysis of Personality Strengths and Weaknesses. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Deering, J. (2011) Probation Practice and the New Penology. Practitioner Reflections. Farnham: Ashgate.
Digard, L. (2010) ‘When Legitimacy Is Denied: Offender Perceptions of the Prison Recall System’. Probation Journal 57(1), 43–61.
Enkaoua, C. (2012) ‘Le barreau de Paris lève le tabou du stress des avocats’. Gazette du Palais, 4–6 Mars, 9–11.
Freiberg, A. (2011) Post-Adversarial and Post-Inquisitorial Justice: Transcending Traditional Penological Paradigms’. European Journal of Criminology 7, 77–93.
Gelsthorpe, L. and Padfield, N. (2003) ‘Introduction’. in L. Gelsthorpe and N. Padfield (Eds) Exercising Discretion. Decision-Making in the Criminal Justice System and Beyond. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Herzog-Evans, M. (2009) Trench Post-Custody Law (2000–2009): From Equitable Trial to the Religion of Control’. EJprob 1(2), 97–109.
Herzog-Evans, M. (2011) ‘Desisting in France: What Probation Officers Know and Do. A First Approach’. EJprob 3(2), 29–46.
Herzog-Evans, M. (2012a) ‘Non-Compliance: A Human Approach and a Hair Splitting Legal System’., EJprob, n° 4(1),: 45–61.
Herzog-Evans, M. (2012) Droit de l’exécution des peines., Fourth Edition. Paris: Dalloz.
Herzog-Evans (forthcoming a) ‘To Robe or not to Robe: Discussion Internationale informelle autour du port de la robe par les magistrats et les avocats’., Actualité Juridique pénal.
Herzog-Evans (forthcoming b) ‘The Importance of the Professional Culture: The Example of a Desistance, Reinsertion a And Rehabilitation French Reentry Court’., in Herzog-Evans (Ed.), ‘How to Release? The Role of Courts and the Use of Discretion in Sentences’ Implementation and Reentry. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Jacobs, J. B. and Larrauri, E. (2012) ‘Are Criminal Convictions a Public Matter? The USA and Spain’. Punishment and Society 14(1), 3–28.
Kneusé, E. (2003) ‘Sous le strass, le stress’. Le Bulletin du Barreau de Paris, Ordre des avocats à la Cour de paris 18(39).
Liebling, A. (2007) ‘Why Fairness Matters in Criminal Justice’. in N. Padfield (Ed.) Who to Release. Parole, Fairness and Criminal Justice (pp. 63–71). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
McNeill, F. (2010) ‘La désistance: What Works et les peines en milieu ouvert en Ecosse’. Ajpénal, September, 376–380.
McNeill, F. and Robinson, G. (2013) ‘Liquid Legitimacy and Community Sanctions’. in A. Crawford and A. Hucklesby (Eds) Legitimacy and Compliance in Criminal Justice (pp. 116–137). Abingdon: Routledge.
Mclvor, G. (2010) ‘Beyond Supervision: Judicial Involvement in Offender Management’. in F. McNeill, P. Raynor and C. Trotter (Eds) Offender Supervision. New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 215–238). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Mouhanna, C. (2011) La coordination des politiques judiciaires et penitentiaries. Une analyse des relations entre monde judiciaire et administration pénitentiaire, CNRS-CESDIP, June.
Nolan, J. L. (2009) Legal Accents, Legal Borrowing. The International Problem-Solving Court Movement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Padfield, N., Morgan, R. and Maguire M. (2012) ‘Out of Court, Out of Sight? Criminal Sanctions and Non-Judicial Decision-Making’. in M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (pp. 955–985). Oxford University Press.
Robinson, G. and McNeill, F. (2010) ‘The Dynamics of Compliance with Offender Supervision’. in F. McNeill, P. Raynor and C. Trotter (Eds) Offender Supervision. New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 367–383). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Saleilles, R. (1898) L’individualisation de la peine. Étude de criminalité sociale. Paris: Germer Baillière et Cie, Félix Alcan (in English The Individualization of Punishment, Bibliobazaar, reedited 2009).
Tarling R (1979) Sentencing Practice in Magistrates’ Courts. Home Office Research Study No. 56, London: HMSO.
Tonry, M. (1996) Sentencing Matters. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2006) Why People Obey the Law. Second Edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tyler, T. R. and Huo, Y. T. (2002) Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Co-operation with the Police and Courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Martine Herzog-Evans
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Herzog-Evans, M. (2013). Offender Recall for Non-Compliance in France and Fairness: An Analysis of ‘Sentences Implementation Courts’ Practices. In: Ugwudike, P., Raynor, P. (eds) What Works in Offender Compliance. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137019523_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137019523_11
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-01954-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-01952-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social Sciences CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)