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.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire