Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter
What Works in Offender Compliance

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.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, G. and Feinblatt, J. (2005) Good Courts. The Case for Problem-Solving Justice. New York: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Martin, S. and Tonry, M. (Eds) (1983) Research on Sentencing: The Search for Reform. 2 volumes. Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cid, J. and Tebar, B. (2012) ‘Revoking Early Conditional Release Measures in Spain’. European Journal of Probation 4(1), 112–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daicoff, S. (2011) ‘The Future of the Legal Profession’. Monash University Law Review 37(1), 7–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daicoff, S. (2009) ‘Collaborative Law: A New Tool for the Lawyer’s Toolkit’, Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy 20, 113–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daicoff, S. (2006) Lawyer Know Thyself A Psychological Analysis of Personality Strengths and Weaknesses. Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deering, J. (2011) Probation Practice and the New Penology. Practitioner Reflections. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Digard, L. (2010) ‘When Legitimacy Is Denied: Offender Perceptions of the Prison Recall System’. Probation Journal 57(1), 43–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enkaoua, C. (2012) ‘Le barreau de Paris lève le tabou du stress des avocats’. Gazette du Palais, 4–6 Mars, 9–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freiberg, A. (2011) Post-Adversarial and Post-Inquisitorial Justice: Transcending Traditional Penological Paradigms’. European Journal of Criminology 7, 77–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog-Evans, M. (2009) Trench Post-Custody Law (2000–2009): From Equitable Trial to the Religion of Control’. EJprob 1(2), 97–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog-Evans, M. (2011) ‘Desisting in France: What Probation Officers Know and Do. A First Approach’. EJprob 3(2), 29–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog-Evans, M. (2012a) ‘Non-Compliance: A Human Approach and a Hair Splitting Legal System’., EJprob, n° 4(1),: 45–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog-Evans, M. (2012) Droit de l’exécution des peines., Fourth Edition. Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 SentencesImplementation and Reentry. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. B. and Larrauri, E. (2012) ‘Are Criminal Convictions a Public Matter? The USA and Spain’. Punishment and Society 14(1), 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kneusé, E. (2003) ‘Sous le strass, le stress’. Le Bulletin du Barreau de Paris, Ordre des avocats à la Cour de paris 18(39).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, F. (2010) ‘La désistance: What Works et les peines en milieu ouvert en Ecosse’. Ajpénal, September, 376–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouhanna, C. (2011) La coordination des politiques judiciaires et penitentiaries. Une analyse des relations entre monde judiciaire et administration pénitentiaire, CNRS-CESDIP, June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolan, J. L. (2009) Legal Accents, Legal Borrowing. The International Problem-Solving Court Movement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarling R (1979) Sentencing Practice in Magistrates’ Courts. Home Office Research Study No. 56, London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. (1996) Sentencing Matters. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2006) Why People Obey the Law. Second Edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics