Introduite dans le Code de procédure pénale par la loi n° 2014-896 du 15 août 2014 relative à l'individualisation des peines et renforçant l'efficacité des sanctions pénales, à l'article 10-1, la justice restaurative rejoint désormais l'ensemble des réponses socio-pénales que le système de justice pénale français peut mobiliser pour répondre aux conséquences et aux répercussions du phénomène criminel. Depuis le 1er octobre 2014, date d'entrée en vigueur de l'article 10-1 du Code de procédure pénale, toute personne victime ou auteur d'une infraction pénale peut se voir proposer une mesure de justice restaurative, dans toute procédure pénale et à tous les stades de la procédure. Insérée dans le titre préliminaire du Code de procédure pénale, dans un sous-titre II "De la justice restaurative", la possibilité d'un tel recours à une mesure de justice restaurative prend place parmi les grands principes qui irriguent la procédure pénale et montre l'ambition du législateur en faveur de la justice restaurative présentée comme une des réponses à la crise que traverse le système de justice pénale actuel. Toutefois, au-delà de cette seule possibilité, se pose la question de la place que la justice restaurative peut occuper au sein de ce système, en particulier en ce qui concerne son institutionnalisation concrète et pratique. La démonstration de la forte complémentarité existant entre justice restaurative et justice pénale, au service d'un système de justice pénale répondant pleinement aux attentes des justiciables, ouvre la voie à une application conjointe de mesures de justice issues spécifiquement des deux modèles de justice. Il peut en résulter un système reposant sur une application conjointe de mesure de justice restaurative et de justice pénale et permettant un traitement différentiel, à la fois du conflit de nature infractionnelle et des attentes criminologiques et juridiques des personnes concernées. Cette approche, mise en perspective avec les initiatives naissantes de programmes en France, présente l'avantage de ne pas nécessiter d'importantes modifications du système de justice pénale. Elle consiste en la construction d'une offre locale de justice restaurative, complète et disponible, structurée par des organismes de coordination du partenariat sur lequel elle repose. Elle se manifeste actuellement, tant à l'échelon local, à travers la création de Services régionaux de justice restaurative (SRJR), qu'à l'échelon national, à travers les actions de l'Institut Français pour la Justice Restaurative (IFJR), aux côtés des principales fédérations et administrations concernées. / The law n° 2014-896 of August 15th 2014 on “Individualization of penalties and for strengthening the effectiveness of criminal sanctions” introduced in the Criminal Procedure Code restorative justice. From now on, it belongs to the socio-criminal responses proposed by the French criminal justice system to respond to the consequences and impact of the criminal phenomenon. Since October 1th 2014, the date of entry into force of the law, a “restorative justice measure” may be proposed to any victim or offender during every criminal procedure and at all stages of the proceedings. Inserted in the preliminary title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, subtitle II, entitled "About restorative justice", the possibility of such recourse to a restorative justice measure takes place among the great principles that define the criminal procedure and shows the French legislator ambition for restorative justice, which is presented as a possible answer to the criminal justice system current crisis. However, it raises the question of the place of restorative justice in this system, especially with regard to its concrete and practical institutionalization. The demonstration of the strong complementarity between restorative justice and criminal justice to create a criminal justice system that fully meets the expectations of victims and offenders pleads in favour of a joint implementation of legal measures from these two models of justice. This can lead to a system, based on a joint application of restorative justice and criminal justice, and permitting differential treatment, both of the criminal conflict and of the criminological and legal needs of individuals. This approach, put into perspective with the emerging program initiatives in France, has the advantage of not requiring major changes to the criminal justice system. It involves the construction of a local offer of restorative justice, complete and fully available, structured by coordinating bodies from the parternership the offer is based on.. This approach is currently visible at the local level, through the creation of Restorative Justice Regional Services (SRJR), as at the national level, through the actions of the French Institute for Restorative Justice (IFJR), with the main federations and administrations.

La problématique soulevée par la délinquance juvénile, loin de se limiter au pré-carré des professionnels du droit, s’est imposée en véritable débat de société. Cet engouement est le fruit de l’évolution de la délinquance des mineurs, qui a tendance à croître, impliquant des auteurs plus jeunes.En réponse à ce phénomène, le législateur a opéré un tournant sécuritaire en 2002, marquant le point de départ du durcissement des dispositions relatives aux mineurs délinquants, notamment celles applicables à ceux âgés de seize à dix-huit ans. Il en découle un rapprochement du droit pénal des mineurs de celui des majeurs, malgré l’affirmation, la même année, par le Conseil constitutionnel d’un principe fondamental reconnu par les lois de la république qui consacre la spécificité du droit pénal des mineurs. Toutefois, il convient de s’interroger sur la portée de ce rapprochement textuel, qui est peu, voire pas mis en œuvre en pratique. Cette question se pose avec d’autant plus d’acuité depuis le changement de politique pénale impulsé en 2012 par le nouveau garde des Sceaux, qui est d’ailleurs à l’initiative d’un projet de réforme de l’ordonnance de 1945, qui entend réaffirmer la primauté de l’éducatif sur le répressif / Juvenile delinquency problem, far from being the sole issue of law professionals, has become a widely debated topic throughout the entire society. Such interest in the issue takes its roots in the delinquency's evolution, broadly on the rise, with ever younger criminals. Given the phenomenon, the lawmaker has moved towards a harsher approach in 2002, and the various laws have been toughening since then, especially those concerning young people aged between 16 and 18 year old. The consequence is that the body of law applicable to young people looks increasingly similar to that one applicable to adults, despite the solemn statement issued by the Constitutional Council the same year. This statement explains that there is a ground principle deduced from the laws of the Republic, recognizing the specificity of juvenile delinquency laws. It is however interesting to reflect on the true scope of this formal closening, which seems to happen to little or no avail. The issue is even more relevant with the changes in the criminal justice approach advocated by the new secretary of Justice since 2012, who is currently initiating a reform on the body of law applicable to young people, aiming at favoring education over repression

Magister Legum - LLM / The following thesis investigates the MACR in African Legal Systems. The MACR is the youngest age at which children in conflict with the law find themselves caught up in the harsh realities of the criminal justice system. Up until recently, debates around fixing a MACR had been successfully side-stepped since the adoption of the UNCRC in 1989. The UNCRC has provided for human rights for children on a global scale while the ACRWC provides for such rights regionally. Contracting States Parties to these treaties agree that there needs to be a MACR in place and have adopted a childrens rights-based framework for reviewing their current child laws, policies and practices in accordance with the minimum standards provided. They do not however, agree on what the fixed minimum age should be. / South Africa

En France, depuis plus d’une soixantaine d’années, la médiatisation des affaires pénales s’est nettement accentuée. Ce constat s'explique en raison de la multiplication des supports (presse, radio, télévision, internet), et de l'intérêt croissant que les journalistes portent aussi bien aux simples faits divers, qu'aux affaires politico-judiciaires. Le public se passionne pour cette actualité sans cesse renouvelée, tout en ignorant la plupart du temps les règles juridiques techniques et complexes du droit pénal et de la procédure pénale. Au-delà du principe de publicité du procès pénal qui autorise, dans une certaine mesure, sa médiatisation par le relais de la presse écrite et audiovisuelle, l’information s’étend dorénavant avec force aux phases secrètes de la procédure. Non sans difficulté, le Droit s’est adapté aux réalités d’une société de la communication, en créant des fenêtres de publicité au cours de la procédure. L’Institution judiciaire se plie aussi aux nécessités de la communication en transmettant des messages aux citoyens par le vecteur des médias. Les enjeux diffèrent. Les médias remplissent une mission de service public en informant le peuple. L’urgence du travail journalistique – et la recherche d’informations inédites ou spectaculaires – s’opposent aux lenteurs nécessaires du temps de la justice qui n’est pas le même que celui de la presse moderne, surtout quand elle est mue par une logique concurrentielle. La justice pénale entend valoriser le bon fonctionnement du système judiciaire à travers les informations qu’elle diffuse. Les dérives tendant à transformer la médiatisation de la justice pénale en une justice pénale « médiatique » se multiplient. La confrontation de ces objectifs distincts est source de conflits dont la résolution repose sur la quête perpétuelle d’un équilibre entre les grands principes démocratiques et les libertés fondamentales consacrés par le droit national et supranational. / In France, the last 60 years or so have seen a sharp increase in the media profile of the criminal justice system. The explanation lies in the massive growth in media outlets (press, radio, television, internet) and in the increasing interest shown by journalists, not only in run-of-the-mill crime stories but in cases of corruption at the top of the political system. Public interest in such doings is huge, although with mostly little regard to the legal and technical complexities of the criminal law and its processes. The justice system in principle allows some media reporting by press and broadcasters, but the present-day appetite for information extends far deeper, into its more secret workings. The Law has adjusted, not without difficulty, to the realities of the communication society. In criminal proceedings, some windows have been thrown open on aspects of previously hidden processes. The judiciary, as an institution, has had to bow to popular pressure, has become more communicative, and has learned to use the media to keep people better informed. Different issues are at stake. The media, as a provider of information, perform a public service. But the urgency of the rush to print – and the pressure to publish undisclosed information including the most sensational – conflict with the justice system, that acts according to a more deliberate legal process than journalism, particularly when the latter’s logic is financial. The criminal justice system disseminates information to enhance its own value as a working institution. Even so, it may slip from being media-sensitive to being media-dependent or “mediatic”—and increasingly so. Different objectives give rise to unresolved conflicts, whose resolution relies on a balancing act that seeks to reconcile the principles of an open democratic society, with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by national and supranational legal systems.

Depuis les années 1990, un nombre grandissant d’accusés sont déclarés non criminellement responsables pour cause de troubles mentaux au Canada (NCRTM). Si certains craignent que ce verdict représente une échappatoire à la punition et libère des individus dangereux en collectivité, d’autres s’interrogent à savoir si cette défense n’occasionnerait pas plus de contrôle qu’une peine dans le système pénal traditionnel. Certains questionnent également la capacité des Commissions d’examen à prendre des décisions qui s’écartent de la rationalité du système punitif. Objectif : Cette étude a pour but de comparer la supervision imposée aux accusés NCRTM à celle des accusés coupables et responsables (CR). Cette comparaison cherche à observer les particularités des trajectoires (durées de supervision et de détention et présence de détention dans le suivi) de ces populations, dans trois provinces canadiennes (Québec, Ontario, Colombie-Britannique) entre 2000 et 2008. Deux sources de données ont été utilisées, soit celle du National Trajectory Project of Individuals Found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder in Canada pour les accusés NCRTM et celle de l’Enquête sur les tribunaux de juridiction criminelle de Statistiques Canada pour ceux déclarés CR. Résultats : Les résultats des régressions de Cox et logistiques indiquent que les accusés NCRTM sont près de trois fois et quatre fois moins susceptibles d’être libérés rapidement de supervision et de détention et sont cinq fois plus susceptibles d’être détenus que les accusés CR. Des différences importantes sont présentes dans les pratiques des provinces, mais de manière significativement plus importante chez les accusés NCRTM. / Since the 1990’s, the number of individuals found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder has increased in Canada. However, the NCRMD verdict remains controversial. While some fear that the verdict is a loophole and releases dangerous individuals in the community, others suggest that this defense could cause more control than a sentence in the criminal justice system. Some also question the ability of Review Boards to leave aside the punitive rationale in the decision-making process. Objective: This study examines the supervison practices imposed to NCRMD accused by comparing them with those applied to offenders found guilty and responsible (GR). This comparison aims to highlight the specificities these two populations’ trajectories (length of supervision, length of detention and presence of detention in follow-up), in three Canadian provinces (Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia) between 2000 and 2008. Two datasets were used. The first comprises individuals found NCRMD (n = 1794) and comes from the National Trajectory Project of Individuals Found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder in Canada. The second comprises GR offenders (n = 320,919) and comes from Statistics Canada's Criminal Court Survey. Results: The Cox and logistic regressions results show that NCRMD individuals are almost three times and four times likely to be released from legal supervision and detention respectively compared to GR offenders, and are five times more likely to be detained during follow-up. Provincial differences were also observed, theses disparities being significantly greater among NCRMD individuals.

La justice pénale française connait une diversification des modes de traitement des affaires qui lui sont soumises. Cette diversification résulte de facteurs endogènes et exogènes au système lui-même. Elle est le point de convergence de l'évolution des conceptions des phénomènes criminels, des attentes sociales pour une justice pénale efficace et, d'un nouveau mode de gestion de la justice. Les modes de poursuite traduisent une de logique de politique criminelle et, une logique de rationalisation du mode de management de la justice pénale. La notion de «modes de poursuite» devient une nouvelle catégorie juridique qui structure le traitement des délits. Sa portée théorique modifie l'approche de la poursuite. La diversification des modes de poursuite a des incidences sur la conception et la typologie du procès pénal et sur l'organisation des juridictions. Le procès pénal monolithique hérité du code d'instruction criminelle de 1808 devient un procès pluriel ayant une physionomie renouvelée et des finalités multiples. La poursuite pénale répond à des principes directeurs nouveaux ou renouvelés. La notion de «schéma d'orientation» illustre cette évolution. Une prise en compte législative de cette notion déboucherait sur une meilleure structuration de la réponse pénale. L'organisation de la chaîne pénale est également affectée, ainsi que la place des acteurs du procès. Des mécanismes de concertation et de délégation sont apparus. Le nouveau management judiciaire trouve appui sur cette diversification des modes de poursuite. Le procès pénal doit intégrer la transformation numérique qui devrait aboutir à la construction d'un procès pénal numérique. / The French criminal justice currently goes through a diversification of cases treatment processes. This diversification is the result of many factors, both endogenous and exogenous. It is the focal point of the evolution in theoretical approaches regarding criminal phenomena, social expectations of an effective criminal justice, and of a new process of justice management. Prosecution choices reflect a logic of criminal policy and also a logic of rationalization of the criminal justice management. The idea of «prosecution choices» becomes a new legal category that articulates the response to criminality. Its theoretical range modifies the approach of the prosecution. The diversification of prosecution choices has consequences on both conception and typology of the criminal trial and on courts organisation. The monolithic criminal trial inherited from the 1808 French code of criminal investigation becomes a more plural trial, with a renewed configuration and multiple purposes. The notion of « orientation schematics » illustrates such evolution. A legislative consideration of this notion would lead to a better structuring of the criminal justice response. The criminal justice system's organization is also affected, as well as the parties situation in the trial. Consultation and delegation mechanisms appeared. The new judicial management builds on this diversification in the prosecution choices. The criminal trial must integrate the digital transformation that should lead to the construction of a digital criminal trial.

Management tools and solutions are largely conceptualised through well-defined and well-understood problems. However, management often encounter problems that are neither well defined nor straightforward. These problems are labelled wicked problems and require a different management approach to solve. Many of these wicked problems fall within the public service delivery sector, of which the criminal justice system is part. The current study argues that crime in South Africa is a wicked problem because it portrays characteristics such as persistence and pervasiveness and does not have obvious causal relationships. Despite collaboration across several organisations and substantial resource investment, crime remains ‘untamed’ in South Africa. This study responded to calls in the literature for further research into collaborations that are mandated and directed. Given that wicked problems are unique and require unique solutions, this research proposed a framework that applies to South Africa and its historical context and is applicable in the governance context under which crime is addressed. This presented a compelling reason to undertake the current research and use the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster as a case to study intragovernmental collaboration. The objective of the research is threefold: first, to gain an in-depth explanation of intragovernmental collaboration within the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster from people who take part in the collaboration; second, to identify the dimensions of the collaboration and the interrelationships between them; and third, to develop a strategic framework for intragovernmental collaborations. Interactive Qualitative Analysis was used as a research method with ten Senior Managers participating in a focus group and semi-structured interviews and five Top Managers participating in semi-structured interviews. In-depth descriptions of the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security collaboration were captured through Interactive Qualitative Analysis in line with the qualitative research approach and eight key dimensions of the collaboration were identified. The research proposed a Strategic Framework for Intragovernmental Collaboration that takes into account the findings of the research and a literature-based conceptual framework underpinned by the Resource Dependency Theory, the Resource-Based View and the Complexity Theory. Findings from the study demonstrate that eight dimensions are key in the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security collaboration, and these dimensions are ranked in order of importance. The presented framework also highlights several differences from reported studies in this field. The contribution of this study not only extends the literature on intragovernmental collaborations but also sets clear guidelines for managers and policy makers to establish and direct intragovernmental collaborations. The chosen methodology and insider access to senior management ultimately produced rich descriptions not previously available. Two key recommendations are identified for the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster. Firstly, addressing the wicked problem of crime requires active participation of stakeholders beyond the Cluster and secondly, it must include active citizenship that is instrumental in contributing knowledge and learning as part of a feedback loop into the criminal justice system. Within the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster, the study identified three drivers of the collaboration that need to be addressed to enable the Cluster to work towards a goal consensus of addressing crime. These are leadership, culture and governance arrangements. Models of leadership and governance are included to guide the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster in this regard. / Business Management / D. B. L.

The thesis analyzes selected issues in the U.S. criminal justice system, and the solutions proposed by American libertarians. First, it introduces libertarianism as a whole, based on both contemporary and historical sources. The thesis then examines the real influence of libertarians on U.S. politics, and the possibility that libertarian proposals might be adopted. It analyzes the successes of the U.S. Libertarian Party and introduces movement and factions in the two major parties, Republican and Democratic, and today's influential politicians who at least partially promote libertarian proposals. In the final, pivotal chapter, the thesis uses the theoretical base provided in the first chapter to analyze the shortcomings of the U.S. criminal justice system, and the solutions and changes that libertarians propose. The structure of this analysis follows the generally accepted structure of the system itself, dealing with criminal law and its enforcement through policing, courts and corrections. On each of these levels, the thesis introduces both the libertarian critique of today's system and examples of specific issues and proposed solutions. The thesis identifies the so-called "War on Drugs" as one of the key points of the libertarian critique, and uses is as a case study which illustrates the impact of...

Prison privatization is a hotly debated topic in the United States that has its place in the political agendas of both political parties and generates opinion by various public interest groups. United States has the biggest prison population in the world caused by the harsh sentencing policies that were implemented in the 1980s. California has had the largest criminal justice system in the nation until it was very recently surpassed by Texas. The state of California has been fighting with the overcrowding crisis for three decades. It began contracting out with private prison companies for the management of its prisons in hope it would ease the situation in state prison system that operated at double of its designed capacity. This thesis is a case study that concerns itself with the prison privatization in the state of California. The purpose of this thesis is to evaluate whether contracting with private prisons helped California to solve its overcrowding crisis and whether privately-run prison are a good choice that benefits California society. This goal will be achieved by evaluating existing experience with the private prisons in California's context.

No description available.