Marc SALOMONE / marcsalomone@sfr.fr
blog:
madic50.blogspot.com / Book: The two forms
Paris,
Tuesday July 23, 2024
REFLECTION
ON THE POLITICAL OFFENSIVE AIMING TO CRIMINALLY IDENTIFY MINORS WITH
ADULTS TO FACE THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF CRIME AND PROPOSAL IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE 1945 ORDINANCE AND THIS NEW IN
CRIME.
FROM
THE ATTACHED TEXT OF MR. OLIVIER MARLEIX, DEPUTY.
1.
Preamble
Public
debate creates an urgency in which all parties must be heard equally.
The
Ordinance of 1945 (what is commonly called the minority excuse and
educational prevalence), juvenile justice, are seized to be one of
the New frontiers of civil confrontations for the control of public
security and beyond the organization of links between residents.
The
Legislature will be asked to decide between two options:
That
is, maintaining the evidence of the 1945 Ordinance, its principles,
which are based on the legal distinction of the criminal
responsibility of minors and adults, the educational priority of
sentences, the transfer of full responsibility for crime to the only
adults.
Or,
its replacement by the doctrine of the confusion of the two ages and
the criminal identification of minors with adults.
France
has experienced this confusion. This is the story of state crime.
This
confusion of ages is not unrelated to the association by the French
administration of Jewish minors with adults requested by the German
authorities of the Occupation.
It
is because of this history, well known to the authors of this reform,
that they decided, in 1945, to include in the decisions with
constitutional value of the Provisional Government of the Liberation
the separation of the two ages and the unequivocal attribution
possible to adults alone of responsibilities for the fortunes and
misfortunes of public life, its orders and its disorders.
Minors
imitate, reproduce, copy adults. They are manipulated by them.
In
no case do they equal them, replace them, or merge with them.
In
no case do they bear social, public, political responsibility for the
crime in which they participate.
The
sanctions for their faults are at the same time punishment,
education, care and protection.
This
is how the President of the Provisional Government of the French
Republic (GPRF), Charles De Gaulle, pardoned and therefore exempted
from the death penalty, dozens of minors (under 21 years old) who had
been guilty of the most horrible and political crimes there are.
Whatever
the particular thoughts, the personal nuances, of the supporters of
the abolition of the excuse of minority and of the educational
priority of the repressive measures with regard to guilty minors
(since these are the terms of the debate), the movement who carries
them aims to make minors assume a major responsibility, or a decisive
part of it, in the new and growing place of crime in society.
This
would make it possible to manage, based on the repression of minors,
the relationships between authorities and crime which are
relationships between adult leaders.
Everyone
knows that new crime has already become an economic, political,
ideological and social power. Identifying minors with adults would
make them take all or part of the national responsibility for the
crime.
This
is how the installation and diffusion of crime take advantage of the
refusal to examine it as a question of executives, of adults.
The
positions opposed to this confusion of ages (that of pedagogism, of
denial, of angelism) do not answer the question posed by the
expansion of crime.
Minors
have really become a place where crime spreads and the simple
separation of ages no longer allows us to answer the questions asked.
I
therefore ask for the principles of the 1945 Ordinance to be
maintained and I propose to develop the law not by leaving the law by
judging faults based on ancillary considerations but by remaining
within the law by judging the direct perpetrators of the fault. .
In
this way, on the one hand, the principles of the 1945 Ordinance are
respected and juvenile justice can function, and on the other hand,
the repression of industrial crime and the refusal of its expansion
are ensured.
The
following text is organized as follows:
Part
1: the arguments of the confusion of ages and the exit from the law
I
study the debate in its current form based on the text of a President
of the parliamentary group of the National Assembly (AN), Mr.
Marleix.
Part
2: the return to law and the proposal for its evolution
In
postscript I make proposals to strengthen the means of action of the
State and its liaison with the public.
Finally,
the text of Mr. Marleix
Title
1: The intervention of President Marleix and the exit from the law
2)-
The offensive
On
May 17, 2024, Olivier Marleix, LR deputy for Eure-et-Loir and, then,
President of the Les Républicains group of the National Assembly,
published a column dedicated to juvenile delinquency.
Following
others, he took the lead in the crusade against the principles of the
1945 Ordinance and more precisely the minority excuse and the
priority to judicial educational measures.
His
detours on parental responsibility and short sentences (which are
also worth discussing) are first of all adjuvants to this main fight.
It
develops all the clichés of pretense, trompe l'oeil, of the
identification of minors with adults, to, in fact, transfer onto
minors all the operations that the authorities are incapable of
executing and succeeding on. adult executives.
The
constancy of this fight on the part of the right, the weakness of the
response of the left which changes the excuse of minority into an
excuse of criminality, the difficulties of a government without a
defined majority, leave the door open to a possible regression which
Mr. Marleix presents as an evolution of common sense and good
company.
The
difference between my point of view and that of Mr. Marleix relates
as much to the political divide between supporters and opponents of
the 1945 Ordinance as to the use of the law.
Magistrates
have to answer this question: who is at fault and what fault? For
them, it is one or more people who made the mistake in court.
For
Mr. Marleix, fault arises from a form of evil, delinquent children
are part of it, judgment is a moment in the fight against evil and
this is indifferent to age.
3)-
The text of Mr. Marleix
Mr.
Marleix substitutes the “public policy” debate for the police
report.
For
him, the culprits are population categories (parents and their
children):
“Let
us finally get away from the current double irresponsibility, that of
juvenile delinquents and that of their parents.
To
do this, it is necessary to provide an effective penal response to
minor offenders while holding their parents accountable. Today we do
neither.»
Mr.
Marleix does not say what “irresponsibility” he is talking about.
This allows him to maintain all the confusions, to juggle from one to
the other and to hold the attention of any reader who gives his own
definition of so-called “irresponsibility”.
This
is what we call a bistro conversation.
This
type of logorrhea makes it possible to escape the law while verbally
manipulating the organizations creating or executing the law.
The
primary characteristic of this criminal association of parents and
children is to establish the obvious evidence of a genetic continuity
which forms a socio-criminal continuity.
Solidarity
in irresponsibility arises from genetic solidarity.
Juvenile
crime comes from the situation of joint, simultaneous
“irresponsibility” of parents and children, and from the fact
that the latter derive genetically from the former who therefore have
full responsibility for them.
The
irresponsibility of elders socially transforms the irresponsibility
of their descendants into juvenile criminality which has become an
attack on civilization through “decivilization”.
The
environment constructed by Mr. Marleix has the function of reducing
him to the social genetics of crime.
We
are no longer in the right.
Consequently,
the judicial reform requested by Mr. Marleix takes the question out
of the courts' judgment and transfers it to the public debate aimed
at "in-depth review of our public policies", which in
return will assign to the courts "a real paradigm shift in
matters of juvenile justice", that is to say that they will make
"minors" and therefore the specificity of the justice
attached to them disappear.
Mr.
Marleix expresses the aim of his coup by referring to “the work of
child psychiatrist Maurice Berger” at the front for 40 years.
At
the bottom of the test tubes in his laboratory lie “particularly
enlightening” discoveries, even blinding: legally speaking, minors
do not exist.
The
unbearable “minority excuse” has no reason to exist, not because
it is ineffective, but because it cannot be effective because there
are no criminal minors since it is scientifically established that
these minors are all viciously major. QED.
The
production of these minor-majors is the sole object of Mr. Marleix’s
intervention.
He
organizes his text in such a way that the reader, and beyond that the
citizen and his representatives, get lost in the detours through
examples that are not examples, parental faults already subject to
judgment, procedures isolated from their context , hypertrophied
solutions to the point of ridicule.
The
sole aim of these maneuvers is to obsess the reader or listener with
the catch-all solidarity of parents and their children, the
identification of minors with adults, the unspoken identification of
delinquent minors with honest minors as well. that from delinquent
parents to honest parents, and the claim to provide a solution with
the only ointment to cure all the pimples that the “short sentence”
becomes under his pen.
Over
the course of the examples, this short sentence slides into a simple
sentence. The short sentence is the blinding light of muscular
interrogations. It masks the removal of any criminal distinction
between minors and adults.
To
achieve his goals, Mr. Marleix constructs a path. Let's follow him.
4)-
Common Irresponsibility
Mr.
Marleix draws an equal parallel between the “irresponsibility” of
“parents” and “minors”.
The
word “irresponsibility” does not have the same meaning depending
on whether it is moral, political or criminal.
This
is why Mr. Morleix is careful not to specify what
irresponsibility is involved.
She
is “double”, joint, that’s all that interests her.
The
irresponsibility of parents and juvenile delinquents is “double”
because it is one. It is the same for both entities, parents and
children. It is the impunity of this fusional structure of crime
which organizes the joint formation of the criminal. It is what
identifies them to each other and in turn legitimizes the penal
continuum of minors and adults.
Let’s
clarify this:
a-
the criminal irresponsibility of parents here simply means that the
legal arsenal allowing the repression of guilty parents already
exists but is not used as the total weapon against the most dangerous
crime which is that of minors.
b-
the criminal irresponsibility of minors (delinquents or not) means
here that minors are not condemnable like adults, therefore in the
eyes of Mr. Marleix not condemnable at all. Even though they are a
danger to civilization.
We
must “face this decivilization.”
The
manipulation of the word “irresponsibility” is therefore
dishonest here. It aims at the psychological, manipulative
identification of juvenile delinquents with their parents and
therefore with adults.
This
manipulation of words allows that by putting an end to the
“irresponsibility” of “parents of delinquents”, it is put an
end to the “irresponsibility” of “minor delinquents”, by a
criminal identification of minors with adults.
In
doing so, by putting an end to the “irresponsibility” of juvenile
delinquents, it puts an end to the “irresponsibility” of all
minors and consequently of their parents, which amounts to
criminalizing all children and all parents .
Mr.
Marleix identifies the irresponsibility of parents and minors,
because this status of irresponsibility and its destruction is the
detour to identify minors with adults.
It
is enough to move from the psychological evidence to the written
translation in the penal code to obtain the extension of the criminal
majority to minors, and that's it.
He
is not talking about criminals but about categories of the
population.
This
structural irresponsibility is the cause of this juvenile crime which
becomes the lever, the driving force, priority of French crime or
merges with it.
This
is why the practical measures of its repression are common to adults
and minors; the minority no longer having anything specific.
These
people always think that they are not affected by the laws they vote
on and that, like themselves, their children will escape the
consequences of these votes. When the time comes, all they will have
to do is appeal to true justice to justify themselves in the eyes of
their children.
5)-
Parents
1-
Voluntary confusion
Mr.
Morleix begins by recognizing as self-evident the legal difference
between the two categories (parents and minors):
“If
minors have an excuse of responsibility, that of the parents must be
engaged.»
The
creation of law requested by Mr. Marleix aims to establish the
responsibility of parents as primordial in the crime of minors.
The
environment of minors reduced to parents must be judged because it
does not constitute the crime but the criminal. The delinquent child
is a production of adults, that of the parents.
It
is because they are adult demons in a child's body that the minors
interpret the minority excuse as a weakness of the judges and the
establishment for them "before their 18th birthday, of a right
to the first beating without real consequences, however serious they
may be.”
Mr.
Marleix thus attributes the music of the Droit de Cuissage to
children and makes the fight against the excuse of minority heard in
the air of a fight against a feudal or colonial population.
Criminal
parents certify juvenile criminality. These are not influenced but
constituted by this sector. Crushing parents means crushing crime,
which involves children.
It
is therefore from the end of the pseudo “irresponsibility” of
parents that he wants to reconquer the lost territory of the
minority, for the moment exclusive of the criminal law of adults.
The
environment (the parents) does not shed light on the possibilities of
catching up with the minors and reorienting them.
It
consolidates its criminal (genetic) function.
We
repress the parents following the actions of the children because the
repression of the parents makes it possible to establish that the
fault of the children (identical to that of the parents, genetically
continuous) is identical to that of the adults (which are the
parents) of which it is an extension. , and must be judged as such.
The
indictment of the parents is in solidarity with that of the children.
It is the presupposition, the condition, the progression.
Some
children are, in fact, waiting for their parents to be put on trial.
On the other hand, attacking parents out of principle to reach
children leads to breaking all the paths of delinquent children
towards the light.
As
for children who are already teenagers and know that the path of
crime is theirs, their vocation, they consider their parents as their
first victims along with their classmates. They know how to work with
a blind adult environment and a repressive system which is for them a
model of public conduct.
Reducing
the relationship between minors and adults to their relationships
with parents is an archaism which contributes to erasing parents and
disorienting children.
The
obscurantist formation of a blindness to the reality of the criminal
industrial world of adults which captures the attention of minors is
one of the most serious faults of this demagogic verbiage which
believes itself to be free from its carefree parade.
2-
Mr. Marleix’s recommendations
To
hold parents accountable, it leaves criminal law itself to move on to
family law.
Indeed,
the cases cited (articles of the penal code, results of trials, and
proposed laws) relate more to the policing of families than to crime
strictly speaking.
a-
parents must keep their 14 year old children at home in the event of
riots.
b-
article L227-17 of the Penal Code
“Article
227-17
Version
in force since May 12, 2024
“The
fact, by the father or mother, of evading, without legitimate reason,
their legal obligations to the point of compromising the health,
safety, morality or education of their minor child is punishable by
two years of imprisonment. imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 euros.
When
the person mentioned in the first paragraph is guilty of the offense
provided for in article 433-18-1 on the same minor, the penalties are
increased to three years' imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros.»
433-18-1:
“The fact, for a person having attended a birth, of not making the
declaration prescribed by article 56 of the civil code
within the time limits set by article 55 of the same code
is punishable by six months of imprisonment and a fine of 3,750
euros.»
This
article in fact concerns “the health, safety, morality or education
of one’s minor child” and the “declaration prescribed by
article 56 of the civil code”.
Articles
55 and 56 of the civil code concern the declaration of the newborn.
Certainly,
the consequences of breaches of these articles are criminal, but the
article is not aimed at the repression of public crime.
c-
Mr. Marleix writes: “Thus, during the riots of 2023, out of 50,000
rioters, 1,660 minors were convicted but only 174 parents were
sanctioned, a ratio of one in ten.»
It
is possible that the magistrates did not see in the parents of the
rioters the massive evidence of complicity meriting identification
with the criminal action.
He
cannot accept it because this distinction of the criminal
“responsibilities” of the two entities hinders the identification
of one with the other and therefore of minors with parents, and, by
identification, with adults and the law that goes with it.
d-
the only law to which he refers is that of Deputy Eric Ciotti,
President of the Republican Party, in 2010, "allowing family
allowances to be suspended in the event of parental failure".
He
complains that President Hollande removed it in 2012 and that
President Macron has not reinstated it since.
If
the parents' only recorded criminal link with the rioters is to serve
them soup paid for by public finances when they return home, it is
legitimate to question the extent of their public role in the
delinquency of minors.
6)-
Minors
Having
established the criminality of adults, he established that of minors.
“To
respond to this violence by minors, it is necessary to understand its
mechanisms.»
Adults
force minors into criminality identical to their own. But how does
this cultural transmission manifest itself?
Science
explains it to us.
Mr.
Marleix summons to the bar the lights of a warrior scientist: “As
such, the work of child psychiatrist Maurice Berger, on the front
line for 40 years facing the actors of this violence, is particularly
enlightening.»
He
can do this because he does not talk about juvenile crime but because
he displays an archaic image of public order: by hitting children
very hard, they will have peace.
This
scientist found the root cause of juvenile delinquency and crime (and
ultimately all crime) and the link between parental
“irresponsibility” and child delinquency.
a-
parental toxicity prevents the psychological structuring of
individuals.
“It
describes violence that often begins in childhood, in family
environments where culturally accepted violence reigns and parents
who do not adequately exercise authority, essential for the
psychological structuring of an individual.»
Children
are hit and mistreated, so they become delinquents not because they
react like minors to the injustices they encounter but because they
carry the violent methods they have integrated into social life.
The
delinquency of these minors is therefore indeed an adult act
transposed by minor supports.
It
is therefore legitimate to judge it according to adult criteria while
paying attention, of course, to the minor bodily envelope of the
support.
QED
b-
Virtually delinquent minors possess this quality previously
identified and without higher education by all the staff of
children's prisons: they are vicious.
This
vice leads them to develop this destructuring of the adult
environment to capture the absence of law.
“In
fact, young people understood very well that before they turned 18
there was a right to the first beating without real consequences,
whatever the seriousness.»
Once
again, Mr. Marleix shows that he makes no difference between young
delinquents and “young people”.
He
does not reflect on youth delinquency and its possible solutions. He
constructs a scapegoat, a catch-all fantasy, a population that is a
Black Hole.
c-
the obvious, courageous, scientific, moral, medical, benevolent,
educational and primordial solution follows: prison.
“Above
all, his work highlights that for young people accustomed to
violence, deprivation of liberty constitutes a first shock and a
break with their neighborhood, their habits, their logic of “doing
as I want, when I want”. Only detention allows for true
awareness of the seriousness of the acts committed.»
It
is always the development of a total thought which ensures the
solution of everything by a single technique.
d-
some could see this as a concordance with the principles of the 1945
ordinance which does not at all exclude deprivation of liberty.
To
avoid this fatal confusion, Doctor Follamour makes it clear that said
deprivation requires “first of all the removal of the “minority
excuse” which provides for a reduction in the penalties incurred by
minors.»
e-
the minority excuse is no longer seen as an element of
differentiation between minors and adults in the order of punishment
for their possible criminality.
It
is an aggravating circumstance in the decline of the penal logic of
adults, the only one that is valid: "However, our judicial
system no longer provides for the sentencing of firm sentences only
after an accumulation of serious offenses, what is more in the case
of a minor.»
Here
again, the minority is presented in natural continuity with the
majority, while this continuity is a wish of Mr. Marleix.
7)-
Detention
Since
with Mr. Marleix all roads lead to prison, it remains to examine the
modalities and universality of this detention.
1-
The universal ointment
Mr.
Marleix having the First Cause and its development; he introduces us
to the ointment to cure all pimples, the “short sentence”.
When
it comes down to “detention,” the educational measures of the
1945 ordinance pale in comparison.
But
this detention must not be faked.
This
is why suspended sentences are prohibited: “When a young person is
tried several times for acts of violence and gets away with a
suspended sentence, he has the feeling that he can do it
again.Suspended sentence is a school for recidivism, the only one
where repetition is encouraged!» We know how to use humor.
The
miracle, total solution, the one that calms, that straightens, that
educates, that dries up crime, is a short sentence.
“Let
us finally move on to a logic of short prison sentences allowing a
systematic penal response from the first act of delinquency
punishable in the Penal Code by a prison sentence, of a few weeks or
a few months, depending on the age of the offender and the
seriousness of the facts. These short sentences must obviously be
carried out in specific establishments in order to prevent them from
transforming into schools of crime.»
a-
suspended sentence is prohibited because it is a “school of
recidivism”. It is also “the only one where repeating a grade is
encouraged!»
b-
now the Courte-peine is also a “school of crime”.
c-
Here we are!
2-
The universality of the practice
Mr.
Marleix invites us to observe two examples of application of
Courte-peine.
a-
The Netherlands
“As
a result, delinquency decreases sharply, thanks to the speed of
execution and the certainty of the (Short sentence), and the prisons
are emptying, paradoxically because we decided to fill them.»
So
why not get informed?
Note
that here too Mr. Marleix erases the distinction between adults and
minors of all ages.
b-
Italy
“Faced
with endemic juvenile crime, Italy adopted a decree-law in 2023
allowing the imprisonment of minors from the age of 14 as part of the
fight against drug trafficking and armed violence.»
There,
it's a little different.
Mr.
Marleix mentions a “decree law” to open the doors of prisons
“from the age of 14”.
Which
does not imply any parliamentary debate a priori.
And
once again, Mr. Marleix writes his text in such a way that we do not
know whether minors aged 14 are judged according to the sentences of
adults or minors.
However,
curiously, he previously gave the example of a “14 year old child
alone in the street during the riots”.
We
can only see a reform to come.
c-
balance sheet
In
both cases, the barrier of minority and majority is erased.
Making
Italian minors bear the brunt of “drug trafficking and armed
violence” is an insult to intelligence, honesty, humanism and,
frankly, to the Italian people and French parliamentarians.
8)-
The clever fixing
The
logic of exit from the law is based on the voluntary concentration of
the gaze of the reader, executive or public, on the child, the minor,
exclusive of any other actor.
When
the director calls on parents, it is to reinforce this exclusive
direction of gaze.
When
the director calls on the mafiosi, it is also to reinforce this
exclusive direction of the gaze.
The
riots of 2023 accentuated this solidarity in the targeting of
children, of minors, through the eyes of adults.
Adult
dealers are known to seek calm, to be reasonable out of interest of
course, but precisely accessible to the interest and capable of
identifying their interest and the public interest.
Minor
little hands are known to cause trouble. They are ultimately
incapable of taking into account the constraints of civilization.
Under
the pretext of talking about a specific subject, juvenile
delinquency, this view constructs children as a full-fledged basis
for current bloody crime, as the engine of public order.
The
minor must be treated judicially as an adult because he is a leading
part of criminal policy even more than of criminal action.
This
isolation of minors with false parental socialization which only
completes this isolation is accompanied by an hypertrophy of the
individuality of minors.
They
would do it all on their own, notwithstanding the influence of
parents, fellow prisoners, older brothers, social networks, etc.
If
delinquents are at the bottom of buildings, it is by choice, if they
destroy buildings, it is because of social networks.
It
is as individuals that they encounter crime and are massively
involved in its industrialization.
Hence,
the idea that they would therefore maintain a free contractual
relationship, like adults, with crime.
The
now industrial enslavement of minors by mafias thus becomes proof of
the particular dangerousness of these minors.
Minors
are deemed to be hired because they risk minimal punishment. This is
the adult part in their criminality.
But
they are solely responsible for the duplicity they carry between
adult criminality and juvenile sentences.
This
logic is reminiscent of that of ideologies of the rape of women.
Men
rape women and it’s not right at all. It is even reprehensible.
But
the women who were raped actually put themselves in a position to
play on the attraction of their sex to men.
They
somehow provoked them.
Rapists
have enough trouble having been thus trapped in their original
weakness by women; a reprimand is enough.
Women,
on the other hand, are the real perpetrators of the crime and must be
harshly punished as such so as not to trap other equally vulnerable
men and thus maintain public disorder.
In
this logic, minors are considered to be fully involved in adult
criminality.
They
exploit the flaws in the justice system which relies on the
protection of people who are in fact minors only by their date of
birth.
They
play on equal terms with the majors. They are a voluntary and
directive element of crime, one of its levels.
A
division of labor is thus established between the public authorities
concerned and the thugs.
By
demanding to be able to judge minors as adults, the said authorities
would reserve the possibility of attacking thugs through its public
manifestations, for example the sale of drugs and its minor hands,
while installing the thugs, the mafiosi, adults, in a sort of
Japanese-style status, where their strength is both recognized and
controlled.
This
balance of power in compromise is constantly brought into play.
The
miners would be the torch for compromises within the ruling groups.
The
institution of the penal majority for minors then creates a class of
litigants who are adults for the sanctions and minors for their
capacities for action, personal and social, and for the reality of
their way of thinking. That is to say defenseless against systems
obviously directed by adults.
By
removing the minority excuse we do not eliminate the slave and
liberal wage enslavement of minors in criminal organizations.
On
the other hand, we note in law that the State places the penal weight
of the actions of the adults concerned on these minors. We pretend to
fight crime while we institutionalize it.
This
is not the place for an analysis of the economics of crime or its
ideological, religious and political implications.
Nevertheless,
we can note that delinquency is precisely a determining element in
the socialization of the young people it concerns.
It
is through it that they enter the criminal market.
It
would never occur to anyone to assert that the minors who once
entered the labor market en masse were anything other than a
subordinate, formatted, dependent component.
However,
they had a common link with the minor subjects of industrial crime:
they were considered vicious, lazy, dangerous.
Affirming
the decisive independence of minors engaged in crime is a fault of
analysis. On the other hand, through the stigmatization of youth, it
is an operation of regulation of an emerging force which is
attempted; without having to fight it head-on.
Young
people are at this point the object of political attention because
they are the vectors of new and disruptive socio-economic processes.
It
is easier, and more prudent in terms of consequences, to attack
15-year-olds than sections of the economy, necessarily run by major
players, and governments.
9)-
Adventure
Mr.
Marleix says in conclusion:
“To
face this “decivilization”, it is finally time to fundamentally
revise our public policies, starting with a real paradigm shift in
juvenile justice to allow rapid, predictable and firm prison
sentences.»
He
concludes his journey in front of the prison.
Why
this route? To avoid what he calls “decivilization” and what
others (and Hollywood) call the apocalypse.
To
deal with Beelzebub, the first of “our public policies” to
“revise in depth” and urgently, is to “start with a real
paradigm shift in matters of juvenile justice”
Mr.
Marleix thus places those he himself calls “children” (14 years
old), on the front line of a battle for civilization.
Even
if he thinks we are so malleable, he should know that we know that
children, minors, have no access to power, to power, to governance.
They
can therefore be neither the danger nor the solution.
Putting
them forward in a fight involving “civilization” is particularly
“irresponsible” and singularly cowardly.
This
could even be classified as a Crime against Humanity.
Why
doesn't he add to the decivilizing children the former senior
executives today in nursing homes and who are also responsible for
our current world?
Should
he recommend taking away their walkers to prevent them from moving
around and becoming decivilized again?
10)-
Balance sheet
Mr.
Marleix only interests us here by his complete formulation of a
political ideology which begins to appear as evidence of the State's
vision of juvenile delinquents.
This
vision focuses juvenile delinquency on minors and their parents. It
deports crime and its perpetrators from their places of practice to
its public supports, children and their parents.
In
this way, it does not affect the mafiosi, nor the organizations
supporting young people, nor the relationships ultimately managed by
adults.
By
removing the distinction between minors and adults, the proponents of
this vision use crime to criminalize populations.
Minors
are not judged as delinquents but as a dangerous mass.
It’s
a return to the bad seed, to the cursed races, to the social genetics
of crime.
This
logic fits perfectly into the project of criminal networks which is
to appropriate minors.
Like
all ideological soups, this development is irrefutable because it is
a simple manipulation, diversion, of plausible facts, of debatable
propositions, which their hypertrophy renders sterile and which have
the sole mission of making musically evident the elimination of the
excuse of minority .
He
thus launches an interminable and indefinable debate.
Followers
of this vision can constitute a parliamentary majority. They
nevertheless go beyond the law to thread the pearls of a sinister
sociologist farce whose outlet is a renewal of state criminality.
Part
2: continuation of the 1945 Ordinance and maintenance of the law
The
critics of the 1945 Ordinance and its principles are not targeting
ordinary juvenile crime. They even declare that we must act because
juvenile crime has changed, as has their very being.
They
justify their action by the industrialization of crime which requires
a new response which, according to them, must be an exit from the law
for a return to state crime against minors.
The
educational response, made up of denial and blindness, recoils just
as much from this very real novelty of the globalized
industrialization of crime.
I
propose to maintain legal reasoning, that is to say to judge the
crime as it is, to maintain the principles of the 1945 Ordinance and
to allow the State to effectively combat this particular offensive of
crime that is the enlistment of minors.
11)-
The logic of leaving the law and that of maintaining the law
1-
Leaving the law
The
logic of reading the facts of juvenile delinquency in which Mr.
Marleix follows is common to almost all those involved in juvenile
delinquency.
Those
who want the pedagogization of the minority excuse as well as those
who want its elimination lock the law into a sterile tête-à-tête
between minors and their crime.
The
sociobiological extension of the blame on “parents” only
reinforces this impasse.
This
confinement leads both camps (repressive and educational) to leave
the law to get lost in sociologization and the comfort of
interpretations.
For
the same reason of socio-biologization of crime, of the same impasse,
some conclude to the suppression of the minority, others conclude to
the suppression of personal guilt.
The
common repressive logic (the development of which I study here by Mr.
Marleix) responds by indicting the parents and establishes the
criminal majority of minors through a biological back and forth, a
sort of legal mimicry.
The
pedagogical logic excludes minors from the social consequences of
their actions by enclosing the law in the same way in the parental
sociobiological back and forth but with the opposite consequences
since it is the parents who find themselves stupid.
In
doing so, they can each propose a system which refers to redemptive
mothering or to purifying terrors which allows everything except to
examine the question of fault posed to the judge and whose answer is
expected by the public.
But
we have seen that this sociobiological extension of the
responsibilities of minors only reinforces the blindness of analysts
and the impotence of the law caused by the tête-à-tête of minors
with their crime.
Both
camps stumble over the presence of the fault, its materiality, its
scandal, its public place.
2-
The crime pool
Everyone
understands that the opposite proposition of this perpetual
confrontation of minors with their crime does not consist of the
opposite of the common proposition of sending minors back to their
fault (of pedagogizing them, sociologizing them or biologizing them),
but of registering them in their pool of crime.
It
is the criminals and their crimes who are judged and not their social
or biological environment.
The
criminal pool is made up of the guilty minors (or even their minor or
adult accomplices) and the adults who accompany them precisely in the
preparation and commission of the offense.
The
accompaniment of minors by adults becomes a criminal category.
Adults
can be both accomplices and accompanists.
It's
up to the judge to decide.
The
category “parents” is excluded but relatives (accomplices,
accompanists, criminals) are included.
3-
Maintaining the right
The
reasoning that I develop and the proposals that I make are part of
the law, its subjects, its qualifications, its procedures, and no
longer in sociology and its interpretations.
I
call the delinquency of delinquents, the criminality of criminals.
I
only name people who actively and consciously participate in the
commission of a criminal offense.
I am
talking about effective judgments for faults established by the
court.
I am
not presenting an ointment to cure all pimples.
On
the other hand, I propose to qualify the crime and judge the
criminals.
There
is no longer any need to identify minors with adults since society is
given the means to distinguish their respective faults.
In
two words:
a-
with the exclusive tête-à-tête of minors and their crime, even
doubled by parental genetics, we are not in crime but in sociology
and the comfort of interpretations.
b-
with the crime pool we return to crime and the concern of the
judgment of actions.
Before
developing, I point out to the reader that this evolution of the law
that I am proposing does not claim to be a total response, as the
supporters of the suppression of the minority or those of impunity
claim.
It
changes the relationship between children and adults in criminal
matters.
As
such, his influence is profound.
However,
it remains partial like any serious proposal.
There
are adolescents who, at the age of 13, are professional criminals in
their own right, sometimes future killers.
The
State knows this and has experience.
But
the test they impose on the rule only confirms its validity.
12)-
Question
If
the government wants to give the police, the judiciary,
psychologists, legal or voluntary workers the means to act usefully,
efficiently and humanely, without involving society in disgust and
crime, there are things to do.
There
are indeed many ways to improve the law regarding juvenile
delinquency and the work of the police on this subject.
I
cite proposals on this subject in notes.
But,
there is only one way of doing things that answers the question of
the repression of said crime and this is perhaps what hinders its
taking into account.
How
can we act directly on juvenile crime?
How
can we punish this in the same way as adult crime, with the same
severity, diligence, capacity, when it is identified with it or is a
complement to it?
Why
not just go back to law; to the fault and to those who commit it?
Unlike
sociobiologism (right or left), this point of view does not leave the
place of the fault, its commission, the law.
13)-
Minors and adults
A-
the desire for isolation
Minors
are by definition subordinate to adults not because the law wants it
but because nature organizes it that way.
It’s
a given, a fact.
A
fault is committed by a minor, it is necessary to look for the major
environment of this delinquency.
This
is what lawyers do by pleading the social environment and politicians
by indicting the parents.
This
makes it possible to address everything coming from ordinary juvenile
delinquency.
But
this does not relate to the crime itself, to its execution.
However,
what is surprising when we read the reports of serious judicial
facts, of public importance, in which minors are implicated, is the
particular attention paid by the adults responsible (for the
investigation, the judgment , information, policy, legislation) to
isolate the minor in question from the adults who supervise him in
the definition, organization, commission, of his fault.
I
call them accompanying adults.
The
main function of the ideological tunnel that constitutes the
exclusive penal reference to parents is to lock the minor into
primary isolation from the adult world.
However,
no matter how ignorant we are of the law, everyone knows that there
are already qualifications to implicate adults in the possible fault
of minors. Everyone knows the notions of misappropriation of a minor,
abuse of weakness, endangering a vulnerable person, etc.
The
entire chain of adults responsible for taking into account the fault
of the minor takes the greatest care to never even mention these
notions.
There
is only one case where these notions are cleverly activated by the
media, and that is to characterize the faults of parents by their
educational failures, qualified as potential criminal faults.
This
reference to parents is the conditional and compensatory perspective
of the minor's isolation from other adults around him.
B-
The rule of erasing offending adults on the ground
This
erasure allows minors to come face to face with their faults as well
as the false connection with adults that is the hypertrophy of
parental responsibility.
1- A
hidden chain
In
Paris, 90s-2000s.
On a
single juvenile delinquent, the chain of responsibility is
substantial without any of these people being publicly accountable
for their responsibilities in the famous explosion of juvenile
delinquency.
Thus,
the adults of the Porte de Vanves gang, the people in charge of the
Dass shelters who feed them with minors, the educators who see them
on the sidewalk skipping classes and move on, the police officers who
wait until the minors are adults to be successful, the magistrates
who refuse to instruct as long as it is for the benefit of this
vulgar meat, the psychiatrists who have fun with anti-psychiatry when
a suicidal minor drug dealer-dealer is presented to them that his
parents and brothers held when his body was already half in the void.
Instead,
the day the bigwigs of the state decide to give up, the leaders of
the gang are spared, the colleagues forgotten, the miners left alone.
1- A
hidden chain
In
Paris, 90s-2000s.
On a
single juvenile delinquent, the chain of responsibility is
substantial without any of these people being publicly accountable
for their responsibilities in the famous explosion of juvenile
delinquency.
Thus,
the adults of the Porte de Vanves gang, the people in charge of the
Dass shelters who feed them with minors, the educators who see them
on the sidewalk skipping classes and move on, the police officers who
wait until the minors are adults to be successful, the magistrates
who refuse to instruct as long as it is for the benefit of this
vulgar meat, the psychiatrists who have fun with anti-psychiatry when
a suicidal minor drug dealer-dealer is presented to them that his
parents and brothers held when his body was already half in the void.
Instead,
the day the bigwigs of the state decide to blow the whistle, the
leaders of the gang are spared, the colleagues forgotten, the minors
are tried and condemned as soon as they turn 18.
Because
at 18, they are then scapegoated minors judged like adults.
In
this case, the leaders are black, they are doing very well, the main
accused by all, is a minor and white, he is going to prison (which is
not necessarily a bad personal thing.)
As a
senator writes to the Director of the prison so that this young
person sees a psychiatrist, the Director accepts but the Social
Worker (SA) refuses and persuades the young person to refuse.
It
should be remembered that the AS's argument is the same as that used
by hospital psychiatrists in an automatic hospitalization, from a
hospital to the emergency department of a district psychiatrist: You
feel crazy ? No, am I crazy? No, then you're not crazy and you don't
need to see a psychologist! Off duty, back in the cell!
From
the prison psych service, compulsory hospitalization without notice
from the prefect, the emergency service, etc. everyone spoke the same
language to him.
This
destruction of the State by the cunning, clever, calculated
acceptance of an accommodation with crime must be what, other than in
the public service, we call corruption, the refusal of aid to a minor
in danger, passive complicity.
But
as in this case, it concerns a child of the Dass, it is of no
importance.
Today,
he is 28 years old, he is a wreck to whom judges, police officers,
caregivers, seriously point out the slightest breach. They are the
progenitors of its social status.
2-
The bands
Province,
80s.
This
tacit pact between the authorities, the communicators, and the
various representations of thugs, was already in the 1980s the
working rule of thugs in vehicle theft.
In
1990, the police arrested a stolen car, its driver and its occupants.
With
an ethnic distribution of tasks; the fragile French minor leads (he
is passionate about it), the adult migrants accompany and collect.
In
view of this usual logic, the police wanted to kick the anthill.
They
summoned the minor driver’s single mother.
They
explained to him that the silence of his son, a minor at the time of
the events, prohibited them from referring these adults and that he
alone would go to court but not as a minor (as his associates had
told him).
Indeed,
that day was his birthday and the police were looking for his birth
certificate.
The
issue was this:
a-
either he remained silent and the police noted that the events had
taken place at 11:35 a.m., and his birth at 11:30 a.m. a few years
earlier. Which made it an adult at the time of the events.
b-
either, he spoke and the police noted that the arrest had taken place
at 11:25 a.m., five minutes before his birth and he was referred as a
minor.
No
one knows what happened in the room between mother and son. The
little one (1m85 anyway) spoke.
The
mother took her son 500km away.
In
this case, the minor got this gift from the police because the police
were fed up with this legal skill from the usual thugs. They had four
tried.
3-
Today:
When
an adult accompanies a minor in a stolen car and the latter refuses
to comply and rushes towards the police officers at the roadblock,
the adult pleads innocent accompaniment and leaves free from police
custody.
As
before, the violent husband pleaded the unintended consequences of
drunkenness in the beatings against his wife and emerged free to do
it again until the death of a woman (this one or another) followed
and that he pleads crime of passion; now disappeared.
The
legal logic at play imposes its distortions.
4-
Aside
In
the case of the stolen car, the little one was proud to stand up to
the police, it was his test of becoming a man.
He
didn’t want to be a “snitch.”
It
should be noted that this term "balance", and the refusal
of being that goes hand in hand, has become a centerpiece of French
public ideology, both on the public and official sides.
The
public is at best embarrassed to declare that they will report every
criminal they encounter.
The
authorities deny the public the right to denounce (in writing,
orally, photographs, videos, sounds) the thugs who bother them,
except at the express request of the said authorities.
This
goes hand in hand with this tacit pact which establishes the power
and expansion of the thugs.
There
can be no control of delinquency or crime without breaking with this
ideology of complicity.
This
is what the Mexican judges came to say in substance to the French
magistrates recently.
Let
us be assured that French executives will not change their blindness.
14)-
minors and vulnerable people
For
adults in a situation of weakness, vulnerability, the erasure of
thugs, the de facto installation of their precedence, is the same:
such
as the support of judicial police officers for the robbing of the
apartment of a disabled Cotorep woman by repeat thugs in 2000.
They
went so far as to go so far as to advise the thugs to change the name
on the EDF contract to legally seize the accommodation.
The
EDF agents accepted three times. However, the CEO of EDF intervened
twice to force them to rectify. When thug rights become a union duty,
isn’t that what we call preparing the ground for mafia penetration?
b-
such the acceptance of rape and the constant detour from psychiatry
(in Paris and in the provinces) for the torture of the complainant
until the withdrawal of his complaint. This is also corruption.
But
it concerns a queer, a vulnerable person, nothing serious.
c- I
am taking examples from the field. We would have the same conclusions
with mass data.
15)-
Proposal
Given
the industrialization of juvenile delinquency, their integration into
adult crime of all kinds, in quantity and seriousness, in economic
and social role, it is time to vote that accompanying adults (in the
sense of the definition , of the organization, of the commission) the
delinquency of minors, do not only relate, as such, to specific
additional qualifications (such as complicity, embezzlement, abuse,
etc., as seen above) but also relate only to general qualifications
for plenary participation in the facts.
This
is an addition or qualification choice made by the judges.
An
adult “accompanying” a minor is not, for this reason, only an
accomplice or abuser, he is also guilty of the acts alleged against
the minor.
This
consideration is already at work in certain judgments when the
prosecution decides that a companion is a co-author. It is rare but
already in place.
If
the law sanctions adults who accompany (in the sense seen above) the
delinquency of minors not as possible accomplices but as constant
co-perpetrators, the judicial triangle of minors-adults-State is
significantly changed.
This
is what Mr. Morleix says he wants to do with the hunt for parents of
delinquents.
But,
he is out of line. He constructs verbiage that reinforces the
industrialization of crime.
In
association with juvenile delinquency, the law can catch
“accompanying” parents but not defaulting parents who fall under
other legal concerns.
Because
if criminal parents are a criminal category, parents of criminals are
not necessarily.
If
at least we don’t string together the pearls of words as too often
in these debates.
On
the other hand, adults who accompany minors are a criminal category.
Qualifications
such as: non-assistance to a minor in danger, corruption of minors,
misappropriation of minors, etc., indicate that the law already
addresses this question of the crime pool but in a way that is
unsuitable for the question of the industrialization of the in
juvenile crime.
16)-
Criminal co-responsibility
When
an adult is “accompanying” a minor thus “accompanied” in the
commission of an offense, he assumes joint criminal responsibility
for the offense.
The
law defines the status of accompanying and accompanied person.
The
minor is judged according to the law on minors and therefore with the
excuse of minority and priority to pedagogy.
The
adult is judged, for the same offense, according to the provisions of
the Penal Code for adults.
If
for each anti-social attack (to speak in general) of minors, the
State sought adult support and assimilated it to the fault committed
by the minor, the so-called juvenile delinquents would quickly
realize that a vacuum was created around them. two.
For
example :
a-
young Nahel, 17 years old, drove a Mercedes car, a high-end car. It
was not stolen. He didn't get it alone.
If
the “accompanists” who provided him with this car were (or could
be) jointly responsible for the misconduct resulting from this loan,
but also jointly responsible for the death of this minor due to these
misconduct caused by the supply of this vehicle, the prior
relationships of these “accompanied” minors to their
“accompanying” adults would no longer be the same.
b-
multiple minors drive wrongfully (intentionally) in the company of an
adult.
If
this adult could be held co-responsible for refusals to comply, lack
of insurance, driving without a license, injuries caused by these
faults, including to minors, the relationship between them would no
longer be the same.
“The
burst” would no longer have the same flavor.
c-
We are told that the settling of scores at the Kalashnikov is
increasingly carried out by minors.
If
the "accompanies" who supply weapons, sponsor the murders,
benefit from the action, were co-responsible for the homicides
caused, they being judged as adults and the minor benefiting from the
excuse of minority, for the same homicide, the relationships between
they would inevitably evolve.
d-
if an adult takes joint criminal responsibility for all rapes or
assaults committed by minors in his gang, even if he himself remained
a spectator, or even absent from the places where the crimes were
committed, the reports of each would change.
d-
If, for specific reasons, an ideological companion is declared to
have accompanied the commission of a fault by a minor, he takes
co-responsibility for the fault.
Relations
between ideologues of all kinds and minors would become infinitely
more complex for the former.
Such
a system would give police officers the means to approach juvenile
delinquents, their parents, their entourage, with weapons other than
those of powerlessness with regard to the famous networks and
subordination to the dictates of their leaders, or even of their
leaders.
We
know that quite the opposite is happening.
Part
3: Silence
It
is unlikely that the representatives of the public authorities are
unaware that the action of the State based on the exclusivity of the
tête-à-tête of minors with their crime and the isolation of them
within the sole parental horizon does not correspond not to reality
due to the industrialization of juvenile delinquency and that it
creates a magical judicial conduct which causes the State to lose
control of both the exercise and the diffusion of delinquency,
juvenile crime and adult crime.
The
repression of juvenile delinquency by considering them as adults
delivers minors to criminal networks made up of adults because the
latter are the supports of this industrialization and the only ones
to hold the levers for the integration of minors into crime.
All
industrialization trains its personnel and its objectives, its goal
is profit and the establishment of an authority.
This
novelty of the crime and its modalities must be the subject of
particular reflection but it does not directly concern the present
insofar as it aims to present an alternative to the transfer in
principle to minors of the responsibilities of adults which is
consistent with the 1945 Declaration.
This
tête-à-tête and this referral to parents makes it possible to
conceal the networks of all kinds which are the source of the
industrialization of minor delinquency.
Break
this tête-à-tête of minors with themselves, its exclusivity, bring
the role of parents back to its rightful proportions, include in all
investigations the search for “accompanying” adults, put them to
the fore, judge their tricks , is a declaration of war on these
networks but also on the good public conscience that accompanies
them.
As
compulsory schooling put an end to child labor, co-responsibility
will ensure the liberation of minors from criminal industrialists.
The
silence regarding third parties who accompany the faults of minors is
not ignorance. It is the expression of a desire not to know, to
establish a cohabitation that the trials of minors regulate.
17)-
Conclusion
The
logic of the 1945 Ordinance places responsibility for crime on adults
and organizes the care of juvenile offenders with the aim of
punishing them and making them adults capable of discernment.
This
system allows France:
1-
To avoid taking responsibility for many crimes and compromised with
crime, as was the case until 1945.
2-
To mobilize the State apparatus and the ideological information
apparatus towards the Crime Directorate and its dependencies which
are by definition exclusively composed of adults.
3-
To punish the faults of each person according to their ability to
control their action.
Where
is the need to break with the principles of the 1945 Ordinance?
This
is because, in fact, there is no need to dishonor oneself to serve
public order, give representatives of the State the legal means to
work, and guarantee justice and tranquility to the population.
Marc
SALOMONE
NB:
three proposals to increase the State's capacity for intervention
against delinquency and crime.
1)-
Compensation for excessive consequences of legal action
The
gendarmes who killed Adama Traoré would certainly have been happy if
there had been a legal system to protect them from the excessive
(here fatal) consequences of their legal action.
Nothing
has changed since Adama Traoré.
Still:
The
distinction between the fault and the legality of the action is only
established after a procedure lasting several years which destroys
the agents of the State, erodes the authority of the latter, annoys
the civil parties and the public of more and more often mobilized.
Defeat
the State or live abandoned by the justice system, such is the
dilemma imposed on the populations concerned.
However,
it is possible to establish a procedure which guarantees the rights
of law enforcement and the dignity of litigants.
Succinctly:
What
creates new political disturbances to public order and which must be
taken into consideration is the indistinction between death due to a
voluntary confrontation of the citizen towards the forces of order
and death due to an entanglement of causes independent of the
legality of the intervention and the desire of officials to kill or
injure.
Whether
police action is legal or not, no one should die or be disabled as a
result of police control and the public no longer accepts these
consequences as obvious.
How
can we account for these distinctions between justified, criminal and
innocent lethal actions on the part of the holders of public
authority?
This
is possible by the creation of a new legal qualification which is
that of “excessive consequence of a legal action”.
The
death or disability of the subject occurred during the legal
intervention, however, they do not relate to either police crime or
the criminal nature of the fault of the subject.
Justice
establishes this situation (or refers to criminal action) and
compensation for victims or beneficiaries is immediate.
Concerning
the civil party, the judges initiate legal action for compensation,
consistent and not ridiculous, in such a way that it does not burden
the public treasury. C'est possible.
Justice
is thus served and all parties are included in its action.
The
speed of this provision will shock those who want to do battle with
the State.
It
will satisfy honest people.
2)-
Taking into account the public aims of criminals.
When
a criminal sprays the facade of a building with a Kalashnikov and one
of the bullets hits a student in her sleep, he only has to say that
he was only targeting the competing thug on the first floor to be
exonerated of the desire to kill the other inhabitants.
The
media trumpets call the death of this young woman “collateral
damage” and the shots are “stray bullets”. The victims “were
in the wrong place at the wrong time,” etc.
It's
a hunting accident.
If
he has not reached his intended alter ego, the thug avoids voluntary
homicide for involuntary homicide. Nice gift.
This
is based on the identification of offenders with individual or
corporate action. They are not recognized as having a political
desire to terrorize a population to impose mafia laws even if,
initially, they are only those of the village rooster.
However,
we are no longer there. Bullets are not lost any more than victims
are collateral. The presence of the victims is not incongruous.
This
criminal came here because there was a population on which he wanted
to impose his law by marking a territory, that of his competitor for
example.
He
addressed her by acting as master and possessor of public space.
The
intention and plenary responsibility are there.
The
thug who sprays a place with Kalashnikov and arrogates to himself the
right to terrorize a population acquires the status of civil servant
or strategist of crime and as such all the deaths that result from it
are included in his program and therefore intentional and of his sole
authority, regardless of complicity.
Instead
of announcing that residents are lost to bullets, the state has
something to tell them.
3)-
Denunciation, anonymous or signed
The
law must guarantee all citizens, alone or in meetings, to be able to
send to the authorities reports of the facts they witness,
information, a denunciation, signed or anonymous, a regular report,
transmit names, contact details, behavior, on the sole condition that
this correspondence is loyal and in good faith.
Under
this condition, citizens are perfectly able to judge whether
anonymity is the form of intervention that suits them.
There
is a concomitance between the domination by the mafiosi of large
territorial sectors and, for around thirty years, the action of
various piss-copies to associate denunciation, and particularly
anonymous denunciation, with Collaboration, with the worst crimes ,
to infamy, to dishonor; to the famous “Darkest Hours of Our
History”, in a single word.
Some
do it out of intellectual idleness, others out of stupidity, but
certainly not all.
Some
do it to prepare the public ground for the future role of thugs in
public life. They continue to do it to make honest people feel guilty
and guarantee the safety of the mafiosi.
They
managed to make the mafia rejection of “scales” a public credo
for ordinary people.
It
is imperative to rehabilitate the denunciation, whether signed or
anonymous.
Computer
science provides the means to process mass information.
It
is grotesque to reduce information on delinquency and crime to that
of state professionals, particularly when the villainous attack on
society becomes a mode of organizing it.
The
action of professionals has its space and its specificity.
It
neither erases nor replaces the participation of the entire
population in informing state agents, elected officials and the
public.
The
law organizes this participation. It can neither prohibit it nor slow
it down and even less disqualify it.
The
French administrative media culture has established itself in the
discrediting of the collaboration of honest people and the police.
However,
when thugs engage population policies, the responses necessarily rely
on the institutional participation of the populations.
Approaching
the 21st century with an administrative thought of a dreamed 3rd
republic is a guarantee of defeat.
4)-
A news item
Paris,
July 19, 2024
Mr
Prefect,
Once
again, a police officer had to be seriously injured, put in danger of
death, for a colleague (or sometimes himself) to use his weapon to
neutralize the attacker.
Why
is it not clearly established that an armed person who unequivocally
demonstrates their intention to assault must be neutralized by
weapons?
It
was she who made the decision to risk death by illegally seeking to
give it away.
In
the long run, this quasi-legal precedence of aggressors in aggressive
action becomes a worrying public policy signal for honest people.
We
have the impression of being in an archaic logic of offering, of
ritual sacrifice, to obtain authorization to take action.
Thanking
you for your action,
My
respects Mr. Prefect,
Marc
Salomone
Retirement
https://www.msn.com/fr-fr/actualite/france/olivier-marleix-la-violence-des-mineurs-n-a-pas-besoin-d-un-énième-grenelle-mais-d-une-
cultural-revolution/ar-BB1mzDve?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=ad81de4b0be9487c88fc46952c5f9752&ei=8
Subtitles
in bold are by Marc Salomone
Olivier
Marleix: “Minor violence does not need yet another Grenelle, but a
cultural revolution”
17.05.24
FIGAROVOX/TRIBUNE
- After the death of young Matisse and that of Shemseddine, Emmanuel
Macron announced the launch of a “Grenelle on minor violence”.
The president of the LR group in the Assembly criticizes this
initiative and pleads for rapid, predictable and firm prison
sentences.
Olivier
Marleix is an LR deputy for Eure-et-Loir and president of the
Les Républicains group of the National Assembly.
One
more drama, one drama too many.
The
young Matisse was murdered in Châteauroux by a 15-year-old
Afghan minor following several criminal proceedings, none of which
led to his incarceration. Another murder committed by a minor, which
comes in addition to the murders of Shemseddine on leaving
his college in Viry-Châtillon, that of Thomas in Romans-sur-Isère
or the assassination of young Philippe in Grande-Synthe by two minors
in April.
The
truth is there: crime among minors is no longer a news story but an
unprecedented radicalization of violence. Talking about juvenile
delinquency even seems out of place as the reality is now more
brutal.
Grenelle
Faced
with this series of criminal acts, Emmanuel Macron announced
a "Grenelle on minor violence", a crude piece of hackneyed
communication which will allow us to dispense with action, while
waiting for the conclusions to be discreetly buried.
Let's
wake up.
Let
us finally get away from the current double irresponsibility, that of
juvenile delinquents and that of their parents. To do this, it is
necessary to provide an effective penal response to minor offenders
while holding their parents accountable. Today we do neither.
The
parents
If
minors have an excuse of responsibility, that of the parents must be
engaged. A unfortunately little-known provision already exists:
article L. 227-17 of the Penal Code which allows for the criminal
liability of parents who do not assume their parental obligations.
This provision is used very little today, the magistrates seeming to
hesitate on the characterization of the facts.
Let's
be clear, leaving a 14 year old child alone in the street in
Nanterre one night of riots must be enough to characterize
the crime.
Thus,
during the riots of 2023, out of 50,000 rioters, 1,660 minors were
convicted but only 174 parents were sanctioned, a ratio of one in
ten.
CIF
In
these conditions, how can we hope to seriously combat the worrying
explosion of violence by minors? In 2010, we passed the Ciotti law
which made it possible to suspend family allowances in the event of
parental default. The socialist government repealed it in 2013,
Emmanuel Macron's majority has refused to reinstate it since, despite
our repeated proposals for 7 years.
To
understand
To
respond to this violence by minors, it is necessary to understand its
mechanisms.
As
such, the work of child psychiatrist Maurice Berger, on the front
line for 40 years facing the perpetrators of this violence, is
particularly enlightening.
It
describes violence that often begins in childhood, in family
environments where culturally accepted violence reigns and parents
who do not adequately exercise authority, essential for the
psychological structuring of an individual.
To
answer this, he first recommends the removal of the “minority
excuse” which provides for a reduction in the penalties incurred by
minors.
In
fact, young people understood very well that before they turned 18
there was a right to the first beating without real consequences,
whatever the seriousness.
Detention
Above
all, his work highlights that for young people accustomed to
violence, deprivation of liberty constitutes a first shock and a
break with their neighborhood, their habits, their logic of “doing
as I want, when I want”. Only detention allows for true
awareness of the seriousness of the acts committed. However, our
judicial system no longer provides for the sentencing of serious
sentences only after an accumulation of serious offenses, especially
in the case of a minor.
reprieve
When
a young person is tried several times for acts of violence and gets a
suspended sentence, he has the feeling that he can do it
again.Suspended sentence is a school for recidivism, the only one
where repetition is encouraged!
Short
sentences
We
must therefore reinstate the short prison sentences banned since 2019
by the Belloubet law.
Some
solutions have never been proven, such as supervised boarding schools
or Epides.
Let
us finally move on to a logic of short prison sentences allowing a
systematic penal response from the first act of delinquency
punishable in the Penal Code by a prison sentence, of a few weeks or
a few months, depending on the age of the offender and of the
seriousness of the facts. These short sentences must obviously be
carried out in specific establishments in order to prevent them from
transforming into schools of crime.
Let's
look elsewhere, what works.
1-
In the Netherlands, for 20 years, there have been more incarcerated
people than in France (180 entries into prison per 100,000
inhabitants compared to 117 in France), for shorter sentences (on
average 5.1 months of imprisonment in the Netherlands). Low compared
to 11.1 months in France). As a result, delinquency decreases
sharply, thanks to the speed of execution and the certainty of the
sentence, and the prisons are emptying, paradoxically because we have
decided to fill them.
2-
Faced with endemic juvenile crime, Italy adopted a decree-law in 2023
allowing the imprisonment of minors from the age of 14 as part of the
fight against drug trafficking and armed violence.
To
deal with this “decivilization”, it is finally time to
fundamentally revise our public policies, starting with a real
paradigm shift in juvenile justice to allow rapid, predictable and
firm prison sentences.
