Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The PPC was enacted in 1958. Codification enables inclusion in a unique document of every single revision that is later enacted either by law or by decree. This typically happens several times a year and, in many instances, multiple articles are revised as a result.

  2. It is important to note that a circular cannot in theory be forwarded by the executive to the judiciary, but in practice this is habitual. From a constitutional point of view, whilst the executive is indeed considered to be a ‘power’ within the meaning of the Lockean principle of the separation of powers, the judiciary is not. The result is a relationship between the two orders in which the executive strongly dominates the judiciary.

  3. The French 1958 Constitution provides two major opportunities for the executive to create legislative norms that in other jurisdictions would solely be the domains of legislators. The executive first enjoys direct legislative power on the one hand, through so-called autonomous decrees that the executive can adopt in areas that are deemed of the executive domain alone, including, to a considerable extent, prison issues. Another source of legislative power is indirect, but is nevertheless quite considerable. It pertains to the executive’s de facto monopoly in the submission of legislative bills. The latter source has been further aggravated since President Sarkozy’s amendment to the Constitution was adopted to make it possible to expedite the legislative process. This in turn has resulted in a significant limitation on the legislator’s power to effectively amend draft laws presented by the executive (see Rousseau 2007).

References

  • Alix, J. (2017). L’hypothèse de la guerre contre le terrorisme. Nouveauté: implications juridiques [The war on terror hypothesis. Novelty: legal implications]. Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonso, C. (2012). La motivation des décisions juridictionnelles: exigence(s) du droit au procès équitable [Court rulings’ writing: due process requirements]. In B. Lavergne & M. Mezaguer (Eds.), Regards sur le droit au procès équitable [Views on the Right to a Fair Trial] (pp. 137–150). Toulouse: Presses de l’Université Toulouse 1 Capitole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audren, F., Chène, C., Methey, N., & Vergnen, A. (2013). Raymond Saleilles et au-delà: thèmes et commentaires [Raymond Saleilles and beyond: ideas and comments]. Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Author (1994). La gestion du comportement du détenu. L’apparence légaliste du droit pénitentiaire [Managing inmates’ behaviour through fictitious legal regulations] [Doctoral dissertation, University of Poitiers].

  • Author (1998). La gestion du comportement du détenu. Essai de droit pénitentiaire [Managing inmates’ behaviour. Essay in prison law]. Paris: L’Harmattan.

  • Author (2006). Ecart entre deux permissions: Le vide juridique entretient la confusion des sources. Obs. sous Agen (chambre de l’application des peines) [How much time between two day leave measures: the legal vacuum creates confusion. Court comment RE Court of Appeal, Sentence management chamber]. 6 April 2006, Actualité Juridique Pénal, June, 271–272.

  • Author, M. (2012). The six-month limit to community measures ‘under prison registry’: a study of professional perception. European Journal of Probation, 4(2), 23–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Author. (2013). Offender recall for non-compliance in France and fairness: an analysis of ‘sentences implementation courts’ practices. In P. Ugwudike & P. Raynor (Eds.), What works in offender compliance: international perspectives and evidence-based practice (pp. 185–207). Basinstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Author (2014). French reentry courts and rehabilitation: Mister Jourdain of Desistance. Paris: L’Harmattan.

  • Author (Ed.). (2015). Offender release and supervision: the role of courts and the use of discretion. Wolf Legal Publishers.

  • Author (2016). Permissions de sortir et autorisations de sortir sous escorte. Ecran de fumée illisible et à droit quasiment constant [Prison day leave and day leave under escort. Unreadable smoke screen and quasi-unchanged norms]. Actualité Juridique Pénal, December, 556.

  • Author. (2017a). Droit de l’exécution des peines [Sentences’ implementation law] (5th ed.). Paris: Dalloz.

  • Author. (2017b). La mise en œuvre de la libération sous contrainte dans le Nord-Est de la France [The implementation of release under constraint in the North East of France]. Rapport de recherche. Mission Droit et Justice.

  • Author. (2019). Towards an evidence-based legitimacy of justice-procedural justice model in offender release and supervision. In N. Stobbs, L. Bartels, & M. Vols (Eds.), The methodology and practice of therapeutic jurisprudence (pp. 183–210). Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

  • Beijersbergen, K. A., Dirkzwager, A. J. E., Eichelsheim, V. I., van der Laan, P. H., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2014). Procedural justice, anger, and prisoners’ misconduct: a longitudinal study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20(10), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beijersbergen, K. A., Dirkzwager, A. J. E., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2016). Does procedural justice during imprisonment matter? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 63–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boisson, S. (1955). Le régime progressif [the progressive regime]. Esprit, 225(4), 607–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonenfant, A. (2001). Les permissions de sortir: un pari sur l’homme [Prison day leave: betting on human beings] [Master’s dissertation, University of Bordeaux IV and ENAP].

  • Chauvenet, A., Orlic, F., & Benguigui, G. (1992). Le personnel de surveillance des prisons. Essai de sociologie du travail [Prison officers. An essay in labour sociology]. Paris: Centre d’études des mouvements sociaux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheliotis, L. K. (2008a). Reconsidering the effectiveness of temporary release: a systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 153–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheliotis, L. K. (2008b). Before the next storm: Some evidence-based reminders about temporary release. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(4), 420–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chovgan, V. (2018). Les limitations des droits des détenus: nature juridique et justification [Limitations on the rights of detainees: legal nature and justification] [Doctoral dissertation, University of Reims].

  • Clemmer, D. (1940). The prison community. Rinehart and Winston: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, A., & Hucklesby, A. (Eds.). (2012). Legitimacy and compliance in criminal justice. Abingdon: Routledge.

  • De Mesmaecker, V. (2014). Perceptions of criminal justice. Abingdon: Routledge.

  • Delbos, V. (2016). Rapport sur la mise en œuvre de la loi du 15 août 2014 relative à l’individualisation des peines et renforçant l’efficacité des sanctions pénales [Report on the implementation of the law of 15 August 2014 pertaining to the individualisation of sentences and strengthening the efficacy of penal sanctions]. France: Report to the Ministry of Justice.

  • Dubois, C. (2018). Prison governors as policymakers, phronetic practices as enacted knowledge. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 57(3), 363–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutheillet-Lamonthezie, B. (1976). Adieu au régime progressif [Adieu to the progressive regime]. Revue Pénitentiaire, 49(3), 279–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Favard, J. (1993). Le détenu citoyen [the inmate as a citizen]. In M. Colin & P. Couvrat (Eds.), Justice et psychiatrie [justice and psychiatry] (pp. 123–130). Bordeaux: Association d’étude et de recherche de l’école nationale de la magistrature.

    Google Scholar 

  • François, C. (2012). La juridictionnalisation des procès de l’exécution des peines [The judicialisation of sentences’ implementation trials] [Doctoral dissertation, University of Lille].

  • Gentilini, A. (2014). Le juge de l’application des peines: vers une disparition? [The sentences’ implementation judge: towards his disappearance?]. In F. Ghelfi (Ed.), Le droit de l’exécution des peines. Espoirs ou désillusion [Sentences’ implementation law. Hope and disillusion] (pp. 107–120). Paris: L’Harmattan.

  • Giacopelli, M. (2019). L’exécution de la peine privative de liberté. Le point de vue de l’Universitaire [Sentences’ implementation. Academic viewpoint]. Lexbase Pénal, 14 March, 1–8.

  • Gras, L. (2005). Détenus en permission de sortir sportive: une expérience marquante [Sport furlough: an outstanding experience for prisoners]. Champ penal [Penal field] [online]. http://journals.openedition.org/champpenal/234. Accessed 16 May 2020.

  • Griffon-Yarza, L. (2015). Guide de l’exécution des peines [Sentences’ implementation: a guide]. Paris: LexisNexis.

  • Guttierez, L., & Bourgon, G. (2009). Drug treatment courts: a quantitative review of study and treatment quality. Public Safety Canada, Report 2009–04.

  • Guttierez, L., Blais, J., & Bourgon, G. (2017). Do domestic violent courts work? A meta-analytic review examining treatment and study quality. Justice Research and Policy, 17(2), 75–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haenel, H., & Arthuis, J. (1991). Rapport de la commission de contrôle (1) chargée d'examiner les modalités d'organisation et les conditions de fonctionnement des services relevant de l'autorité judiciaire, créée en vertu d'une résolution adoptée par le Sénat le 13 décembre 1990 [Report of the Control Commission (1) responsible for examining the organisation and operating conditions of the services of the judicial authority, set up by virtue of a resolution adopted by the Senate on 13 December 1990.]. French Senate, Report n° 357. Paris.

  • Hild, B. (2018). La liberté d’expression des personnes détenues [Prisoners’ freedom of expression] [Doctoral dissertation, University of Lille].

  • Hiller, J., & Mews, A. (2018). The reoffending impact of increased release of prisoners on temporary licence. England and Wales: Ministry of Justice Analytical Summary.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lable, J.-F. (2015). Sortie et sortants de prison: Une réinsertion déterminée [Prison leave and prison leavers: a determined reintegration] [Doctoral dissertation, University of Paris-Saclay].

  • Lapierre, A.-S. (2015). La motivation du jugement pénal [Rulings writing by penal courts] [Doctoral dissertation, University of Toulon].

  • Larauri, E. (2019). Reducing discretion in the administration of prison leave: in search of legitimacy. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-019-09424-4.

  • Latimer, J., Morton-Bourgon, K., & Chrétien, J. A. (2006). A meta-analytic examination of drug treatment courts: do they reduce recidivism? Canada: Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). Plenum Press. https://openlibrary.org/publishers/Plenum_Publishing_Corporation

  • Liebling, A. (1989). Temporary release: Getting embroiled with prison. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 28(1), 51–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebling, A., Laws, B., Lieber, E., Auty, K., Schmidt, B. E., Crewe, B., Gardom, J., Kant, D., & Morey, M. (2019). Are hope and possibility achievable in prison? The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 58(1), 104–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Springer.

  • Lowder, E. M., Rade, C. B., & Desmarais, S. L. (2017). Effectiveness of mental health courts in reducing recidivism: a meta-analysis. Psychiatry Services. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201700107.

  • Martucci, F. (2013). Le détenu-citoyen. In S. Boussard (Ed.), Les droits de la personne détenue après la loi pénitentiaire du 24 novembre 2009 [Prisoners’ rights after the Prison Act of 24 November 2009] (pp. 217–231). Paris: Dalloz.

  • May, D. C., & Wood, P. B. (2010). Ranking correctional punishments: vews from offenders, practitioners, and the public. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

  • McNeill, F. (2012). Four forms of ‘offender rehabilitation’: towards an interdisciplinary perspective. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17(1), 18–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & McKensie, D. L. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: a meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 60–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottenhof, R. (Ed.). (2001). L’individualisation de la peine. De Saleilles à aujourd’hui [Sentences’ individualisation: from Saleilles to today]. Toulouse: Erès.

  • Paterline, B. A., & Orr, D. (2016). Adaptation to prison and inmate self-concept. Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science, 4(2), 70–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Péchillon, É. (1998). Sécurité et droit du service public pénitentiaire [Public safety and prison public service law]. Paris: Librairie de droit et de Jurisprudence (LGDJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Planque, J. C. (2017). Le vote des personnes détenues. [Prisoners’ vote]. Recueil Dalloz, 17, 922–923.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prison Services (France). (2002). Rapport annuel d’activité 2000 [Annual report for 2000]. Paris: La Documentation Française.

  • Rigo, C. (2017). Sur-adaptation carcérale et réadaptation extérieure: une conciliation difficile [Over-adaptation in prison and external rehabilitation: a difficult conciliation] [Master’s dissertation, University of Bordeaux and Prison Services Academy (ENAP)].

  • Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

  • Rostaing, C. (2014). L'ordre négocié en prison: ouvrir la boîte noire du processus disciplinaire [Negotiated order in prison: opening the black box of the disciplinary process]. Droit et Société, 87(2), 303–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. (2007). La Ve République se meurt, vive la démocratie [The 5th Republic is dying, long live democracy]. Paris: Odile Jacob.

  • Saint Narcisse, A. (2017). La liberté sexuelle et les conséquences de sa limitation en détention: L’exemple de l’homosexualité carcérale au centre de détention de Toul [Sexual freedom and the consequences of its limitation in prison: the example of prison homosexuality in the detention centre of Toul] [Master’s dissertation, University of Bordeaux and Prison Services Academy (ENAP)].

  • Saleilles, R. (1898). L’individualisation de la peine: Etude de criminalité sociale [The individualisation of punishment: a social study of crime]. Paris: Germer Baillière et Cie and Félix Alcan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. K. (2011). Looking inside the black box of drug courts: a meta-analytic review. Justice Quarterly, 28(3), 493–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. R., & Sabatino, D. A. (1990). American prisoner home furloughs. Journal of Offender Counselling, 10(1), 18–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snacken, S., Beyens, K., & Beernaert, M. A. (2010). Belgium. In N. Padfield, D. van Zyl Smit, & F. Dünkel (Eds.), Release from prison: European policy and practice (pp. 70–103). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

  • Sparks, R., Bottoms, A. E., & Hay, W. (1996). Prisons and the problem of good order. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Stobbs, N. (2019). Therapeutic jurisprudence as pure research and as a theoretical framework for applied research. In N. Stobbs, L. Bartels, & M. Vols (Eds.), The methodology and practice of therapeutic jurisprudence (pp. 25–53). Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

  • Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law (2nd ed.). London: Yale University Press.

  • Tyler, T. R. (2007). Legitimacy and criminal justice: International perspectives. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Publications.

  • Tyler, T. R. (2012). Legitimacy and compliance: The virtues of self-regulation. In A. Crawford & A. Hucklesby (Eds.), Legitimacy and compliance in criminal justice (pp. 8–28). Abingdon: Routledge.

  • Uggen, J., Manza, A., & Behrens, A. (2004). ‘Less than the average citizen’: stigma, role transition and the civic reintegration of convicted felons. In S. Maruna & R. Immarigeon (Eds.), After crime and punishment: Pathways to offender reintegration (pp. 258–290). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

  • Viron, M. (2007). Les permissions de sortir: un outil face à la sur-adaptation carcérale. Mémoire de fin d’étude ENAP, 11e promotion de CPIP [Prison day leave: a tool to combat over-adaptation to prison] [Prison Services’ Graduation dissertation]. Prison Academy. Probation officers’ 11th promotion.

  • Wexler, D., & Winick, B. J. (Eds.). (1991). Essays in therapeutic jurisprudence. Durham: ;Carolina Academic Press.

  • Wexler, D., & Winick, B. J. (Eds.). (1996). Law in a therapeutic key: developments in therapeutic jurisprudence. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Ms. Bonafini, Ms. Kensey and Ms. Fernandez (Prison Services Headquarters, Paris) for their help with this query.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculté de Droit, Université de Reims, Laboratory CEJESCO, 57 bis rue Pierre Taittinger, 51100, Reims, France

    Martine Herzog-Evans

Authors
  1. Martine Herzog-Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martine Herzog-Evans.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Herzog-Evans, M. French Prison Day Leave and the Rationale Behind It: Resocialisation or Prison Management?. Eur J Crim Policy Res 26, 247–264 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-020-09445-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-020-09445-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation