Probation in France: Some things old,some things new,some things borrowed,and often blue

Abstract

French prison based probation services merged with their community based counterparts in 1999. This reform was aimed at placing the service under the wing of prison services and to reduce the influence of the judiciary. Despite still adhering to their rehabilitative goals and to a one-to-one pre-Martinson type of supervision, French probation services have long abandoned social work. Their exceptionally heavy caseload, a prevailing prison thinking, their newly acquired judicial work and managerialism explain this evolution. French probation services present an odd mix of old traits, insularism, and denial of recent scientific progress, with penal transferring, modern management and frenetic law reforming. All this has generated an identity crisis along with work-related stress.

Keywords

community sentences and measures conditional release electronic monitoring France group work managerialism occupational stress penal transfer prison administration probation programmes

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berman

Feinblatt

(2001), ‘Problem-Solving Courts: A Brief Primer’, Law and Policy 23(2): 125−140.

Cario

Herzog-Evans

Villerbu

(2011), ‘Pourquoi il est urgent de créer des UFR de criminologie’, Recueil Dalloz 11: 766−767.

Chantraine

(2010), ‘French Prisons of Yesterday and Today: Two Conflicting Modernities − A Socio-historical View’, Punishment and Society 12(1): 27−46.

Durrance

Hosking

Thorburn

(2010), ‘Can Structured Programmes Improve One-to-one Supervision?’, in F. McNeill, P. Raynor and C. Trotter, Offender Supervision. New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice, pp. 193−214. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

Herzog-Evans

(1999), ‘Le juge de l’application des peines, juridiction de premier degré?’, Revue de sciences criminelles et de droit pénal comparé, 1999: 289−301.

Herzog-Evans

(2009), ‘Application des peines: la prétendue bonne partie de la loi pénitentiaire’, AJPénal: 483–490.

Herzog-Evans

(2011a), ‘Desisting in France: What Probation Officers Know and Do. A First Approach’, European Probation Journal 3(2): 29−46.

Herzog-Evans

(2011b), ‘Programmes in France: What Next?’, audio conference at the Starr conference ‘Strengthening Transnational Approaches to Reducing Reoffending’, Sofia, 8 June 2011. Available at: http://herzog-evans.com/activites/conferences.php.

Herzog-Evans

(forthcoming), Droit pénitentiaire, Dalloz, Paris.

10.

Lhuilier

(2007), Changements et construction des identités professionnelles: les travailleurs sociaux pénitentiaires, Rapport final, July.

11.

Mayhew

Van Kesteren

(2002), ‘Cross-national attitudes to punishment’, in Hough

Roberts

J. V.

(ed.), Changing Attitudes to Punishment. Public Opinion, Crime and Justice, pp. 63−92. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

12.

Padfield

van Zyl Smit

Dünkel

(eds.) (2010), Release from Prison. European Policy and Practice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

13.

Pearson

D.A.S.

McDougall

Kanaan

Bowles

R. A.

Torgerson

D. J.

(2010), ‘Reducing Criminal Recidivism: Evaluation of a Structured Process for Probation Supervision’, Journal of Experimental Criminology 7(1): 73−102.

14.

Pelissier

Verdier

(2008) ‘France’, in van Kalmthout

A. M.

Durnescu

(eds), Probation in Europe, pp. 349−380. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

15.

Petersilia

(2003), When Prisoners Come Home. Parole and Prisoner Reentry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

16.

Solomon

A. L.

Bhati

Kachowszki

(2005), Does Parole Work? Analyzing the Impact of Post-Prison Supervision and Recidivism. Washington DC: Xxxxxxxxxxx.

17.

Staechelé

(1995) Pratiques de l’application des peines. Paris: Litec.

18.

Travis

Visher

(2005), Prisoner Re-entry and Crime in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.