French early release: McProcedures and McRe-entry
| Date | 01 December 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/2066220319897238 |
| Published date | 01 December 2019 |
| Author | Martine Herzog-Evans |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/2066220319897238
European Journal of Probation
2019, Vol. 11(3) 188 –201
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2066220319897238
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejp
French early release:
McProcedures and
McRe-entry
Martine Herzog-Evans
University of Reims, France
Abstract
Before 2009, the main rationales of the French early release system were reinsertion
and resocialisation; the prevention of reoffending, the interests of society; and the rights
of victims. With the chronic prison overcrowding and the cost for public finances a
radical change occurred with three law reforms (2009, 2014, 2019). The new main
– if not unique – objective is to free as many prisoners as possible, this, as quickly as
possible, without through the gate programmes that address prisoners’ release needs.
As a research conducted from 2014 to 2016 shows ‘bad fast’ procedures are rejected by
both reentry judges (they lack ‘moral alignment’) and with prisoners (they are perceived
as unfair and unsupportive). This article will deal with these subjects by drawing upon
theories of innovation diffusion and legitimacy of justice.
Keywords
Conditional release, legitimacy of justice, innovation diffusion, parole, prisoner release,
reentry
Policy does not implement itself. (Barrett and Fudge: 9)
Introduction
In France, the release of, prisoners is regarded as an autonomous legal field, called ‘sen-
tence implementation’ (exécution des peines) or ‘sentence management’ (aménagement
des peines) and includes community sentencing with probation; prisoner release;
breaches of parole, recall and other sanctions; criminal records and methods of expung-
ing them; prohibitions and deprivation of rights; confiscations, fines and day-fines. It is
the last phase of the ‘penal continuum’ (Herzog-Evans, 2016a) and so it is regulated by
Corresponding author:
Martine Herzog-Evans, University of Reims, 57 bis rue Pierre Taittinger, CS 80005, Reims, 51100, France.
Email: martineeevans@gmail.com
897238EJP0010.1177/2066220319897238European Journal of ProbationHerzog-Evans
2019
Original Article
To continue reading
Request your trial